Kill Ratios

ricardo said:

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

Click to expand...

The lopsided kill ratio in favor of the Hellcat is not surprising, considering that by 1943, when it entered service, the cream of Japanese naval fighter pilots had been killed off. The U.S. was far better than Japan in turning out large numbers of trained fighter pilots.

I've seen the kill stats for the Me-109, Hurricane, and Spitfire in Jerry Scutts's book Messerschmitt Bf-109: The Operational Record, in which it's pointed out that these stats only refer to kills that are known to be between those particular types of fighters.
Me-109 vs. Hurricane: 153 Me-109s destroyed vs. 272 Hurricanes destroyed is a kill ratio of 1.78-1 in favor of the Me-109.
Me-109 vs. Spitfire: 180 Me-109s destroyed vs. 219 Spitfires destroyed is a kill ratio of 1.22-1 in favor of the Me-109.
Me-109 vs. both: 333 Me-109s destroyed vs. 491 Spitfires Hurricanes destroyed is a kill ratio of 1.47-1 in favor of the Me-109.
A lot more of all three of these types were destroyed during the Battle, it's just not known for sure, to what.

Jerry W. Loper said:

I've seen the kill stats for the Me-109, Hurricane, and Spitfire in Jerry Scutts's book Messerschmitt Bf-109: The Operational Record, in which it's pointed out that these stats only refer to kills that are known to be between those particular types of fighters.
Me-109 vs. Hurricane: 153 Me-109s destroyed vs. 272 Hurricanes destroyed is a kill ratio of 1.78-1 in favor of the Me-109.
Me-109 vs. Spitfire: 180 Me-109s destroyed vs. 219 Spitfires destroyed is a kill ratio of 1.22-1 in favor of the Me-109.
Me-109 vs. both: 333 Me-109s destroyed vs. 491 Spitfires Hurricanes destroyed is a kill ratio of 1.47-1 in favor of the Me-109.
A lot more of all three of these types were destroyed during the Battle, it's just not known for sure, to what.

Click to expand...

Scutts conclusions have been challenged by others, but that aside, a simple comparison of the numbers does not adequately assess the battle problem. British committment of forces to the battle was necessarily conservative, meaning that numbers committed to battle were restrained. To commit large number of forces to individual battles risked increasing losses to an unsustainable rate, and also meant that other strikes might be left unparried. The British priority was always to get at the bombers first, which often meant they had to expose themselves to counterattack from the escort. The escort was invariably well placed for this in the early part of the battle, however, as bomber losses mounted the german fighters were increasingly ordered to provide close escort rather than loose escort, which meant they were tied rigidly to the defence. This tended to decrease losses amongst the bombers, in the short term, but increased losses for the Germans fighters.

Overall, I stick to my earlier assesment. Depending on how you want to define what is a kill (pilot + plane, plane only, immediate shoot down, or crash landing, or write off due to damage after return), the me 109 crews probably lost the straight up numbers count. In terms of machines lost, its probably true they lost a lesser number, but in terms of overall losses I think they suffered greater losses.

Total british losses of machines in the battle were in the order of 1000 fighters, German losses to all causes were also much higher....as i recall about 1200 airframes, so you are right that overall losses for both sides were much higher than straight combat losses. For instance, a lot of 109s crashed because they ran out of fuel....this is not classed as a combat loss, but its still a loss

I think this is where the irrelevance of such things as kill ratios and proclaiming the capabilities of particular aircraft become apparent, its pointless quoting statistics as to what was shot down by what when you dont know the circumstances, a hurricane shot down by a 109 whilst attacking a bomber for instance is still shot down but says nothing about the capabilities of the types relative to each other!

what really matters is the outcome of the battle, a section attack that breaks up a bomber formation and disperses its attack is a successfull action regardless of how many end up on the ground!
an interception of a fighter section before they get to the bombers resulting in them disengaging is again a successfull action even if no kills are claimed!
the force that wears down first through attrition, accidents or morale and abandons its operations has lost the battle regardless of how many kills they claim, we saw this exact circumstance in both the Battle of Britain and the air battle for Malta!
put simply a fighter aircraft is only as good as the circumstances of the particular engagement and the man flying it!

I seem to remember reading that in the battle for Malta the fighter vs fighter losses were about 3-2 in favour of the LW but the RAF pilot's morale did not suffer because they did not know that, they thought that they were winning because of the confusion of over claiming. As regards claims over home territory, they should be more accurate because of more ways of verification but it seems that allowing higher claims for public consumption enters into the mix.

RAF strategy was to destroy the bombers, Axis strategy was to attrit the RAF fighter strength, the RAF won the battle!

Confirming claims reguire a buracracy that can take the time to match pilots claims with other witnesses, and wreckage found.
It certainly not unknown for a pilot to misidentify a aircraft, get it's crash site wrong, or time shot wrong, they are busy trying to stay among the living.

And in some defensive situations it may be hard to spare or justify enough time and personnel to do a good check on claims.

In Malta's case a lot of the physical evidence was down with the fish, so all you'd be left with was pilot claims and other witnesses.

Everybody understates their loses, and overstates their victories.

Reality is though these academic ratios don't amount to a hill of beans unless you are able to put the situation into context,

unless you have some way of factoring in the RAF fought outnumbered from bombed out airfields with nowhere to disperse to, pilots suffering malnutrition and dysentry, chronic shortages of servicable aircraft ammunition and fuel, constant weapons failures due to shortages of spares and maintenance tools, constant attacks whilst landing or taking off, the list goes on and on!

that they were able to keep fighting in those conditions, that the allies were able to get replacements to them, is nothing short of remarkable and testiment to determination and fighting spirit in adverse circumstances, and that is the real measure of a fighting force!

In most cases the only party who knows exactly how many AC of a certain type were shot down in WW2 is the party whose plane went missing and even that is likely to be inaccurate. The party who has the "kill" is almost certainly in error also. The kill ratios you see are approximate, usually and the bigger the number the more approximate.

renrich said:

In most cases the only party who knows exactly how many AC of a certain type were shot down in WW2 is the party whose plane went missing and even that is likely to be inaccurate. The party who has the "kill" is almost certainly in error also. The kill ratios you see are approximate, usually and the bigger the number the more approximate.

Click to expand...

Even that is an inadequate way of estimating losses to enemy action. Many a/c were lost to unknown causes. Many other ac were able to make it home, refeerred to a maintence unit for rebuild, outside the squadron, and ended up being scrapped or cannibalised.

Others remained with the squadron, but were not airworthy. They would remain on the tarmac, essentially as a decoy or for spares, but still listed as on strength. If the airbase was then under threat, or captured the "runner was then burnt or otherwise destroyed. This happened a lot to the British in 1940, and to the germans 1943-5.

What destroyed the aircraft? The initial events that led to its grounding, or the demolition undertaken by its owners?

Close or more than half of aircraft were lost to actions that had nothing to do with enemy action. Its a big reason why fighters as a part of the inventory are overrated. They might, overall, be responsible for 30-40% of losses. There are the effects of flak, and then the effects of non-combat losses, and/or non-operational losses

If you will notice I said, "likely to be inaccurate." I just did not go into detail why.

I don't think circumstances matter in war. Whether or not the RAF flew from bombed-out airfields or not, were eating right or not, the results speak for themselves. Doesn't minimize the hardships of the RAF in slightest or say anything about the bravery of RAF crews. That is simply not in the kill ratio picture for any group, country, or aircraft type..

Kill ratios are a good indicator, at least to me, of the effectiveness of an aircraft and, approximate or not, tell a tale all their own. I do NOT speak of unit kill ratios, but of kill ratios for the aggregate type as a whole. In WWII the Grumman F6F Hellcat was tops. The 43 or so Buffalos the Fins used are not a kill ratio until you factior in the other Buffalos, which were abysmal. I'd consider a slice of, say, 75% of all Buffalos to be sufficient for a kill ratio, but it would be less than 1 : 1 for the Buffalo regardless of the finish experience with them.

Apologists for the kill ratio speak of quality of opposition, theater of operations issues, and all manner of mitigating circumstances, but the results speak for themselves. They are usually fans of a type without a good kill ratio or for which data are lacking. Apparently nobody can come up with good kill ratios for German aircraft and most Axis aircraft in general, but we can for major Allied aircraft, and at least most major American aircraft. Doesn't tell the whole story, but does tell a story. It would be nice to get the kill ratios for all WWII fighters, but that is probably a pipe dream and we are left with an unsatisfyingly incomplete story.

For me, the kill ratio is not meaningless, but it IS incomplete without data for the opposition in similar amounts. Though I would like to say something about the "top dog" fighter, it is difficult without data on most of the major fighters of WWII so, in that respect, people who don't like the kill ratio as a measure are correct ... we have only partial data. Partial data do not make a good basis for an informed opinion, but we CAN make some relative judgements among the fighters for which we DO have data.

The facts of WWII tend to confirm the relative conclusions we coluld make, but I am left with the inescapable conclusion that while a kill ratio is nice to know, the amount of missing data for most major fighters leaves kill ratio out on the fringe of meaningful information untl such time as we at least have data for most major types.

Some interesting kill ratios.

F4F, FM, Marine, Navy, landbased and carrier based...had 191 losses to E/A and were credited with 1327 kills E/A
F2A, all Marine and all land based...had 14 losses to E/A and were credited with 10 kills of E/A

Hi Renrich,

The 150 or so Buffalos lost in the first 3 or 4 mionths of the war were, by and large, not American-owned or flown. I believe they were British, Dutch, and some Indonesian. Don't have their victories, but we know about 150 were lost at the start of the war. That is 150 out of about 750 or so made. The Fins flew 43 ...a sample of less than 5% of production.

Wish I had kill ratios for Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons, Me 109's, Fw 190's, Yak-3 / 9's and Lavochkins La-5 / 7's... but these are difficult to find enough data on to be meaningful. For a good kill ratio, I'd like to see at LEAST 65 - 75% of the aircraft that went into service represented in the sample. At least that size sample is a majority!

I am left unsatisfied, but I also realize that all sides had some pretty good aircaft in their inventories. No side lacked bravery or failed to fly some impressive missions.

While I am an American, I love ALL the WWII planes for their place at the pinacle of propeller-driven, piston-powered aircraft. If you put Hans Joaichim Marseilles in an LaGG-3 and a rookie in a Bearcat, I'd pick Marseilles any day.

There weren't 150 Bufffalos lost in the first few months of the war, at least not through air-to-air combat. Depends on what counts as a "loss" - yes, all the British and Dutch Buffalos were lost because their airfields were overrun and the remaining airframes were captured (plus many were destroyed or damaged beyond repair on the ground through Japanese bombing raids). If you're talking losses due to air combat the numbers are much fewer.

There WERE 150 Buffalos lost. Doesn't matter why. They were ineffective in the extreme. If the operator of an aircaft ceases to oeperate it, the effectiveness goes to zero.

You do NOT have the numbers and neither do I. Your entire statement is conjecture, and that is OK. But the Buffalo did NOT acquit itself well in combat despite the Fins. They stopped making Buffalos VERY QUICKLY, and the entire production was not in combat for long and did not distinguish itself except in Finland. They would have done as well or better with P-40's.

Only my opinion, but the Fins 43 examples were NOT a representative sample of the Buffalo since they were less than 5% of the production. I don't accept ANY 5% samples unless I have MANY of them for a sample average and standard deviation. Basic stastics ...

Give me 25 samples of 5% of the population and I can make a pretty good prediction. Give me ONE and I cannot say ANYTHING except the sample was good or bad. The Finsish example was good. Almost nobody else's was. History ...

The Buffalo was awful in almost any context except for Finland. Let's say we just disagree. That's OK. We don't have to agree.

Don't worry; be happy. We'll be fine whether or not the Buffalo was great or a true flop. Methinks a flop .... but I also don't really care since it was only about 509 (not 750) airplanes in WWII out of maybe several hundred thousand. They made more Blackburn Bothas! The Buffalo was a broken cookie in the breadbox of life, nothing more. Less of a footnote than the CANT Z.1007 that almost nobody except a fan of the type has even heard of!

Still, if one came on the market ... we'd be very glad to have one for a flying example of history, and it's quite aerobatic, even if not competitive with the best of WWII.

Wish I had kill ratios for Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons, Me 109's, Fw 190's, Yak-3 / 9's and Lavochkins La-5 / 7's... but these are difficult to find enough data on to be meaningful. For a good kill ratio, I'd like to see at LEAST 65 - 75% of the aircraft that went into service represented in the sample. At least that size sample is a majority!

Click to expand...

The best books on this for the RAF, Commonwealth and Exiled AFs are Foremans series on the western front. He deals with individual losses and claims (with many of the claims cross referenced to surviving German records) on a daily basis, naming losses by cause and airframe number. Currently, as far as I know ther are three books.....Battle Of Britain, 1941 (to July), 1941-2 (July 1941 to April 1943). I believe he is going to cover the entire war on the western front eventually

GregP said:

Give me ONE and I cannot say ANYTHING except the sample was good or bad. The Finsish example was good. Almost nobody else's was. History ...

The Buffalo was awful in almost any context except for Finland. Let's say we just disagree. That's OK. We don't have to agree.

We'll be fine whether or not the Buffalo was great or a true flop. Methinks a flop .... ...The Buffalo was a broken cookie in the breadbox of life, nothing more. Less of a footnote than the CANT Z.1007 that almost nobody except a fan of the type has even heard of!

Still, if one came on the market ... we'd be very glad to have one for a flying example of history, and it's quite aerobatic, even if not competitive with the best of WWII.

Click to expand...

Greg you're still munching that Buffalo Jerky.

My biggest objection to what you've written above is of course its evident land lubber's perspective. If you are a nautical type after all, then apologies but you seem to want your feet on terra firma wrt to the lowly Buff.

Less of a footnote than the Cant Z.1007? It was the first modern naval fighter. In its original form, despite being 'unsuitable' for combat by western standards, the Finns beat the snot out of its more 'modern' (and LANDBASED) opposition with it. I am sorry it didn't wear high heels to the prom but it could dance! What country did the Cant Z.1007 preserve? what breakthrough in contemporary technology did it accomplish? The F2A-1 should be regarded with at least some small respect as a historical icon and not charactized as "a broken cookie in the breadbox of life," any more than the I-16 is such. Outside of Finland, the F2A forced Grumman to develop a winner in the F4F so it made a hugely worthwhile contribution to the winning of WW2 there as well. Did the Cant spur development of a plane half as successful as the F4F? Please stop saying such naughty things about the feckless progeny of our chubby little icon.

With respect to pilot's claims. I think historically, the claiming process is subject to a similar kind of statistical tyrrany that invests sports. It provides some measure of assessement of the skill of a pilot and competence in doing his job. Many fine pilots had no kills or low scores simply because they didn't get much opportunity to engage an enemy. Organizationally the FAA is foremost among such examples. Apropos nothing: ironically, as an athlete in my youth, I hung on every number, now in old age, only the game matters and how its played. The athlete who outdoes his purely statistical expectations on a given good day is all the more appreciated.

As far as kill vs probable. The example of Butch O'hare comes to mind. I believe he was credited with 5 and a probable. He actually got 3 outright but I think only one of his victims in a group of 8 actually got back to base and was a total wreck. The others ditched and were lost due to battle damage. Someone with a copy of First Team may check this but in terms of actual planes destroyed on that mission, I think he may have actually gotten 6! which is what Thach believed.

GregP said:

There WERE 150 Buffalos lost. Doesn't matter why. They were ineffective in the extreme. If the operator of an aircaft ceases to oeperate it, the effectiveness goes to zero.

Click to expand...

Sorry but this kill ratio statistic is a nonsense,

if aircraft are unfit to fly because they have no spares or fuel, that says nothing about the effectiveness of the aircraft but of the logistical situation at that time.

if an aircraft is flown by a rookie pilot or the airforce is using poor training/tactics, this says nothing about the effectiveness of an aircraft but of the superior tactics/training/experience of the opposition.

if an airforces strategy is to destroy the enemys bombers then again this says nothing about an aircrafts capability when you then try to compare it to the enemys escorting fighters and the only factor which matters here is was the bomber offensive defeated.

if an aircraft is flown in small numbers against a numerically superior enemy again this says little about the effectiveness of an aircraft and everything about the capability of the airforce to field sufficient numbers of planes and pilots!

to argue a kill statistic declares how good/bad an aircraft was can be interpreted in bizzare ways, an example-- the Hawker Typhoon shot down far more FW190 raiders in 42/43 than they lost to fw190's in combat so would that mean the Typhoon is the superior aircraft? no what it meant was in the tactical situation at that time the Fw190 was caught and shot down trying to intrude/escape , yet later in the war the typhoons were ground attack aircraft which saw little air to air combat and were at the other end of the stick!

the buffalo in the hands of the finns worked well, in the tactical situation they faced, i'm pretty sure you can find plenty of evidence to show the buffalo was fought well by the Finns but badly by the allies, a P40 fought badly was as much use as a Buffalo fought badly.

what kill ratios show is the strategic situation far more clearly than the effectiveness of an airframe!

Sorry back, but I disagree, with good reason. Individually, your points are well taken and I can agree. Collecitvely, they are not and I don't.

All the pilots of a particular type are not rookies or below average. If a large sample of aircraft is in service, it follows that SOME pilots are below average, some about average, and some above average. The kill ratio tells me that the aircraft was employed by the operators, using the pilots, tactics, and situation at the time either effectively or not so effectively. Anything above about 3 : 1 was at least marginally effective. Above about 6 : 1 was quite effective. Above 10 : 1 was a real winner.

That, of course, assumes a large sample of the type, not some small number, such as 43 Ta 152's or 43 Buffalos. The US Navy, for instance, operated more than 8,500 Hellcats in the Pacific. That makes for a really good sample, and the pilots were also a large smple. Collectively, they excelled. Individually, pilots and circumstances vary widely. In a large sample, these "outliers" average out to the ability of the aircraft / pilot / tactics / situation taken as a whole.

There will always be the Hartmanns or marseilles around but, in a large sample, the average pilot flying the average mission is what wins or loses the conflict in the air.