Kill Ratios

[Chocks away!]

Finnish Bf 109 Gs had a kill/loss ratio of 12 to 1 over the Soviets

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

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

to me a kill is when the plane's crashed/destroyed in flight, if the pilot can land it but the plane's unable to fly again, it's written off, not killed...........

 

[wmaxt]

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

to me a kill is when the plane's crashed/destroyed in flight, if the pilot can land it but the plane's unable to fly again, it's written off, not killed...........

Lanc your right, I think for these reasons:

1, When a plane comes back with the pilot/crew alive they certainly not killed.
2, Virtualy all airplanes brought back contribute something and add a good plane/s to the fight.
3, The persons defining their kill ratio only count those aircraft that crashed without returning (both sides) this keeps it consistant.
4, The aircraft is an asset the one you see going down is positively a lost asset.

The thing about Kill ratios is that as a statisic and can be muddeled easily. Kill ratios must be checked and understood before they mean anything!

wmaxt

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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

to me a kill is when the plane's crashed/destroyed in flight, if the pilot can land it but the plane's unable to fly again, it's written off, not killed...........

Lanc your right, I think for these reasons:

1, When a plane comes back with the pilot/crew alive they certainly not killed.
2, Virtualy all airplanes brought back contribute something and add a good plane/s to the fight.
3, The persons defining their kill ratio only count those aircraft that crashed without returning (both sides) this keeps it consistant.
4, The aircraft is an asset the one you see going down is positively a lost asset.

The thing about Kill ratios is that as a statisic and can be muddeled easily. Kill ratios must be checked and understood before they mean anything!

wmaxt

Yup - and with the exception of the aircraft being entirely written off upon landing, be rest assured the maintenance folks will tear into it for spare parts.....

 

[ricardo]

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.

Hi everybody!!

First of all, I'd wish to thank to all of you for your contribution in this matter.

Greg: Very good!! I'd wish to see the list of kills that you found.

My main interest is to see what happened down in North African / Mediterranean campaign (details of air war, of course).

Thanks in advance.

Ricardo.

 

[P1234567890]

I have one comment and one question.

Comment: Everyone here has gotten so caught up in whether or not a plane that makes it back but can't fly again has lost sight of the original post; the bottom line is that the F-15 is/was one hell of a fighter! Does it really matter if its ratio is 110:0 or if it's 110:1?

Question: How are planes destroyed on the ground typically counted? If you strafe a runway and take out 10 parked planes all lined up in a row, does that count as 10 kills?

 

[JoeB]

1. Does it really matter if its ratio is 110:0 or if it's 110:1?

2. How are planes destroyed on the ground typically counted? If you strafe a runway and take out 10 parked planes all lined up in a row, does that count as 10 kills?

1. I agree, sometimes people get too wrapped up in the math of ratio's, with high ratio's it makes a big difference if you discover a few more losses on the favored side; if you think of it like a score in a game, getting beat 28 to 4 or 28 to 7 isn't that much different.
2. The US 8th AF I believe eventually gave 'full' credit for ground victories on the reasonable premise that destroying a/c on well defended (by AA) German airfields required no less skill or courage than downing them in the air. However today almost everybody still distinguishes those victories from aerial ones and implicitly discounts them, I think it's fair to say. Most other US numbered air forces and other air arms didn't count those even nominally as the same as aerial.

We know that WWII aerial victory credits didn't usually exactly correspond to actual a/c losses by the enemy, and the degree of discrepancy was highly variable. That was even more true of ground claims. As one example Japanese Navy AF claims of great destruction of US a/c on the ground in the initial strikes against the Philippines, in December 1941, were pretty accurate. Claims in the following days and weeks by Japanese Army AF of dozens more US a/c destroyed on the ground were almost all overclaims. They were mistakenly counting bombing and shooting up the same wrecks again and again, some of the a/c deliberately propped back up by US ground crews to look like they needed more going over, to draw more fire away from the surviving a/c now camoflaged and/or dispersed to lesser known airfields, plus newly made wooden decoys were used too eventually: too bad they didn't have the foresight to prepare such measures *before* December 8 '41.

Ground claims could be accurate or astronomically overstated. Even more so than for aerial claims you need the other side's account or you can't say with any certainty what really happened.

Joe

 

[Flyboy2]

Espcially in World War II kill claims where heavily exagerated. Alot of times, pilots claimed to have killed the same aircraft and both got credit for the kill. I remember hearing that this was especially true in the Pacific, but I can't find the source. For instance, I have heard multiple figures for kill-to-loss ratios of F-86's in Korea: from 7-1 to 11-1. I know that that is in Korea, but I would think the same general concept applies to World War II.

 

[drgondog]

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

That might not be a 'pure' analogy.

Jan 11, 1944 is when Doolittle did his 'pursue the LW in air and on the ground'.

Several of his bomber commanders thought he issued a 'death order'.

Until the battles in first 4 months of 1944, it was not so much fighter to fighter 'around the bombers' as it was 'wait until the fighters run out of range'. The bomber commanders did not want fighter cover out of sight 'hunting' and the 8th AF only had 6 P-47 groups active by October 1943.. not near enough to cover the bombers and could only go a little bit into Germany.

The Mustangs and P-38s changed the game by taking bombers all the way to the target, and made it work.

 

[drgondog]

1. I agree, sometimes people get too wrapped up in the math of ratio's, with high ratio's it makes a big difference if you discover a few more losses on the favored side; if you think of it like a score in a game, getting beat 28 to 4 or 28 to 7 isn't that much different.
2. The US 8th AF I believe eventually gave 'full' credit for ground victories on the reasonable premise that destroying a/c on well defended (by AA) German airfields required no less skill or courage than downing them in the air. However today almost everybody still distinguishes those victories from aerial ones and implicitly discounts them, I think it's fair to say. Most other US numbered air forces and other air arms didn't count those even nominally as the same as aerial.

Historically, the reason for awarding the ground score in the 8th AF the same as an air award was a 'cynical' incentive to get the fighters to chase the Luftwaffe 'in the air and on the ground'.. the USAF reversed that decision and since the 1950's a ground score is noted but as you know does not count toward ace status.

We know that WWII aerial victory credits didn't usually exactly correspond to actual a/c losses by the enemy, and the degree of discrepancy was highly variable. That was even more true of ground claims. As one example Japanese Navy AF claims of great destruction of US a/c on the ground in the initial strikes against the Philippines, in December 1941, were pretty accurate. Claims in the following days and weeks by Japanese Army AF of dozens more US a/c destroyed on the ground were almost all overclaims. They were mistakenly counting bombing and shooting up the same wrecks again and again, some of the a/c deliberately propped back up by US ground crews to look like they needed more going over, to draw more fire away from the surviving a/c now camoflaged and/or dispersed to lesser known airfields, plus newly made wooden decoys were used too eventually: too bad they didn't have the foresight to prepare such measures *before* December 8 '41.

Ground claims could be accurate or astronomically overstated. Even more so than for aerial claims you need the other side's account or you can't say with any certainty what really happened.

Joe

The 8th AF lost a lot more pilots strafing than air to air combat and this 'incentive' was a huge reason for the losses.

The overclaim issues were always a factor in trying to asses the huge scores in April 1945 in Germany and Czechoslovakia and Denmark. There were more severe 'rules' for the 8th AF awards usually based on a.) visible fire or explosion, b.) gun camera evidence via orbiting the airfield and counting fires.

At the end of the day those claims in context of German aircraft never returning to service were probably accurate, simply because the LW didn't have enough resources (or pilots and fuel) to bother repairing a damaged ship.

The Germans were very good a putting dummies on the field and the a/c in the trees but the dummies didn't have fuel on board.

Joe - On the other side of the ledger a lot of aircraft that did not have fuel had quite a bit of damage from the .50 cal fire, and even if not destroyed (or recorded as such) were so badly damaged as to be written off or out of service for longer than it would take a new one to be built.

 

[drgondog]

to me a kill is when the plane's crashed/destroyed in flight, if the pilot can land it but the plane's unable to fly again, it's written off, not killed...........

The USAAF standard for an award was a.) major airframe component (wing/tail, etc) seen to separate from the aircraft rendering it impossible to sustain flight, b.) aircraft seen to blow up or enveloped in fire, c.) pilot seen to bail out, d.) aircraft seen to crash.

I have seen thousands of encounter reports in which several awards were made for what I thought were questionable claims that fit the following:

"Fw 190 last seen trailing heavy smoke in a spin before entering cloud cover" This type claim received anything from a damaged to destroyed based on observation of second witness.

"Me 109 was streaming coolant and smoking heavily when he crash landed in front of me, pilot ran to trees"

This aircraft may have been repaired, but represents intriguing possibilities as the the pilot clearly defeated his opponent, damaged a critical component (coolant), pilot crash landed but survived and we don't know whether the airplane was repairable.. This one appears more frequently.

And my personal favorites for conundrums - "The 109 crash landed, I kept on shooting and noted the pilot slumped in the cockpit".. so maybe pilot KIA but Me 109 repaired. Where does this go in the ledger..??

Both of these 109 examples will easily be awarded "Destroyed" in the Victory Credits Board for the 8th AF but the 190 example could be any of the three types depending on witness statement of HIS perception of the visible characteristics -

Many LW pilots 'escaped' by putting his 190 in a flat spin, then recovering after he came out below cloud cover.

 

[mrjohnwilsonjr607]

Would love so much to have a copy of your air to air kills, any chance to email me please.
[email protected]


Thank you
John Wilson

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.

 

[Kryten]

Reffering back to the original question, was the 109 Champ?

You cannot claim any aircrafts superiority based on kill ratios in reality simply due to the operations at the time, as has been pointed out the RAF had a completely different startegy the the Luftwaffe in the BOB, its more a game players menatlity to want to claim one aircraft as being "the best"!

sure there were some poor designs but in reality Hurris and Spits shot down plenty of 109's and vice versa, and the operation those planes were on at that particular time was far more important to the outcome of the caombat than the differences between the aircraft!

The Typhoon was not noted in Historical terms as a great air to air combatant, whereas the FW190 was, yet the Tyhpoons in 1942/43 shot down a lot of 190's and 109s on both anti jabo patrolls over the channel and Ranger operations into occupied Europe!

the situation the combat took place in and the experience of the men flying the aircraft was vastly more important to the outcome than the planes!

 

[Denier]

Reffering back to the original question, was the 109 Champ?

You cannot claim any aircrafts superiority based on kill ratios in reality simply due to the operations at the time, as has been pointed out the RAF had a completely different startegy the the Luftwaffe in the BOB, its more a game players menatlity to want to claim one aircraft as being "the best"!

sure there were some poor designs but in reality Hurris and Spits shot down plenty of 109's and vice versa, and the operation those planes were on at that particular time was far more important to the outcome of the caombat than the differences between the aircraft!

The Typhoon was not noted in Historical terms as a great air to air combatant, whereas the FW190 was, yet the Tyhpoons in 1942/43 shot down a lot of 190's and 109s on both anti jabo patrolls over the channel and Ranger operations into occupied Europe!

the situation the combat took place in and the experience of the men flying the aircraft was vastly more important to the outcome than the planes!

as addition to this...

an interesting article about the kill/loss ratios during the BoB:
Battle of Britain pilots actually crap shots ? The Register

stating :
'Regarding the battle as a whole, the BBC concludes: "In total the RAF claimed to have shot down 2,698 German planes. The actual figure was more like 1,294. The RAF lost 788 planes - far fewer than the 3,058 the Luftwaffe claimed." '

making most kill/loss figures (dating from that time) an unreliable and most likely useless source, when investigating airplanes superiority over one another.
the effectiveness and excellence of a airplane should depend on how well it performed its tasks and the ease wherewith their pilots could fulfill those,
and this certainly is not properly represented by kill ratios.

 

[muscogeemike]

I read that Finnish Pilots claimed the B-239 (the export version of the Brewster Buffalo) had the highest kill to lose ration of any fighter they flew.

 

[parsifal]

with regard to the BoB, it needs to be remembered that Dowding was fighting a defensive battle, and had to commit his forces sparingly to actually reduce losses over the longer term. the objective for the RAF was not to destroy the LW, or even to get a higher kill ratio. it was simply to stay a credible force, disputing control of the airspace. Dowding had no real idea how long the german assault was going to last, so he did the best he could to draw the whole thing out waiting and hoping for a miracle. what he didnt realise was that the losses in the Luftwaffe really were hurting its force projection capabilities. couple that with some poor targetting choices and the gradually worsening weather, and there you have the reasons for british victory. this wasnt the destruction of the LW, it was however the survival of fighter command as a viable force, and the denial of airspace control to the germans. The heavier losses suffered by the LW was a welcome and worthwhile bonus, but was not essential to the british victory.

as for those numbers, well, they need to be treated with a great deal of circumspection. remember, FC losses were being inflicted by more than just the 109s, so there is no way of knowing just how many spits and hurris were shot down by 109s. also, if it is taken that a total kill needs to include the pilot, then the jagd waffe did not win, they lost. More than half those recorded FC shoot downs did not result in the kill or capture of the pilot, whereas the losse suffered by the 109s resulted in and almost 100% loss of machine and pilot. This is the main disadvantage of operating over enemy controlled territory....nearly every loss is a total loss of both machine and pilot

 

[fastmongrel]

parsifal you just summed up the Battle of Britain in 8 lines. Well done I might steal that and pretend I came up with it

 

[parsifal]

Thanks for the compliment. if its useful, please use the material

 

[renrich]

The only people that knew for sure how many AC were lost in a given battle were the ones whose AC were lost and even they did not know for sure which AC were lost to enemy action and to other causes. All fighter pilots were enthusiastic over claimers and understandebly so. Same goes for bomber defensive gunners and AA gunners. Just a guess but the Hellcat credits, as well as all other fighter credits would probably get closer to reality if they were sliced in half. That is just a broad rule of thumb. Some individual's credits may be much more accurate than others. The books I have read which painstakingly matched up claims to actual losses per the command that lost the AC seem to point to the 50% area of actual kills in air to air combat.

 

[tomo pauk]

Compliments for posts on this page. Small amount of words accurately depicting claim/kill ratio BoB.