Kill Ratios

We could also say that the 109 was a appauling aircraft because of the under carriage configuration (which caused numerous accidents) and poor pilot performance in the later years of the war. Oh if the Hitler Youth started flying it, I think we could peg it down another notch if that had been the case.

The thing about kill ratios is there dependant on a couple things:
1. intended role
2. pilot and his training
3. environement and if the airframe was upgraded for the better or worse
4. If Equipement was available to maintain the aircraft

If you didn't have fuel for any aircraft it wouldn't run then it wouldn't of attained any kill ratio, it also depends on statistics and if they were kept honestly or if the numbers were fudged so the aircraft could be reported as acting better than it actually was. Or if numbers were kept at all, we all know the Yak series were amazing, but records of the time arn't easy to come by, if they even exist anymore.

I think "kill ratios" are being mixed up with "loss ratios". in this testosterone enriched discussion. A kill ratio is inherently related to numbers of aircraft shot down by one type against all its foes. But if an aircraft is lost due to causes other than anything to do with the direct actions of the enemy aircraft whose kill ratios we are trying to establish, then that loss has nothing to do with kill ratios.

If, for the Buffalo scenario, we narrow the set to look at its performance in the far east in 1941-2. If we establish that it lost 150 aircraft out of say 200 deployed, its loss ratio is is 0.75:1.

If we establish that the Buffalo managed to shoot down 20 aircraft in aerial combat whilst losing say 50 in the air (and the other 100 of its total losses not in the air), we might say that its kill ratio was 0.4:1, however that result has no bearing on the aircraft relative merits. How may of the buffaloes were shot down by AA, how many just fell out of the sky, how many of the enemy aircraft did the same....who is on the offensive....what are the distances from friendly bases that the battles take placeetc, etc.

A really good example of how statistics like this regaularly get abused and misused is the situation over France in 1941-2. on the face of it, the RAF took an absolute pounding, until how those losses are actually broken down. How many of the RAF were shot down ny flak, how many ran out of fuel, how many just got lost and didnt come home????? Being on the defensive, over your own territory affects your chances greatly as to whetyher you make it home or not. If you start to apply those variable and think about it a bit, it rapidly become appareant that a "Kill ratio" is not easily defined, and dosent tell us much about the aircraft.

However, saying we must look at every combat before we can make any conclusions about the aircraft, is simply bunkum as well. Looking at the full dataset, is the most accurate statistical analyisi that can be done, but statisitics often have to rely on random sampling, or even targetted sampling to get any result. It isnt as accurate, but it a method of data analysis usesd every day, with usually great accuracy.

GregP said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've read that the Fin's claim the version of the Buffalo they flew has the hightest kill ratio.

muscogeemike said:

I've read that the Fin's claim the version of the Buffalo they flew has the hightest kill ratio.

Click to expand...

Finally! Thank you Mike. A joy for the discriminating mind or the OCDed.

oldcrowcv63 said:

Finally! Thank you Mike. A joy for the discriminating mind or the OCDed.

Click to expand...

For some perverted reason I've always liked this ugly little plane.

GregP said:

There WERE 150 Buffalos lost. Doesn't matter why.

Click to expand...

Sorry Greg but that is total nonsense, either as a measure of Buffalo losses or as a statement of how to measure combat effectiveness. Since when does an enemy army overrunning your airfields constitute any measure of fighter aircraft effectiveness? How about lack of logistics - not relevant to the Buffalo but certainly does apply to the Luftwaffe in 1945? I've never seen anyone try to justify "losses to all causes" as a measure of any aircraft's combat effectiveness, and that has nothing to do with the Buffalo (other than, once again, you trotting out incorrect information...and but if you're going to publish made-up loss figures you have to expect someone who DOES have the knowledge to call you on it!).

GregP said:

You do NOT have the numbers and neither do I.

Click to expand...

Errr...you may not be interested in research but I certainly am, and I do have the numbers for the RAF to hand (I'm away from home right now so can't access my info for the Dutch losses but it's out there for those who care to learn). For the record, 31 RAF Buffalos were shot down out of a total of 167 that were ever available in the Far East. In case you're interested (which I doubt - let's just keep trotting out your made-up figure of 150 'cos it sounds good) 32 RAF Buffalos were lost due to accidents not related to mechanical issues (ie pilot error) from March 1941 thru to the last flight of a RAF Buffalo at the end of 1943). A further 15 were lost due to maintenance issues (11 of these were due to engine failures) again from March 1941 thru November 1943.

This is no defence of the Buffalo because I have no idea how the above stats compare to similar loss categories for other aircraft types...however, care to enlighten us as to where your figure of 150 came from?

I think I'd have to come down on the side of who are wary about attaching too much weight to the whole idea of kill/loss ratios, particularly when they are used to try and gauge the relative merit of the aircraft involved. Take the Hellcat v Zero discussion, for instance. When the Hellcat was racking up it's scores the USN was in the ascendancy against the IJN. Japan started the war with a solid core of highly trained pilots, many of whom had combat experience in China. By the time the Hellcat arrived a big chunk of those pilots had been lost at Midway and the US pilots had figured out tactics that largely negated the dogfighting inferiority their preceding fighters. These considerations weighed at least as much on the 13:1 kill loss ratio as the superiority of the Grumman. Also of course, not all the Hellcats kills were Zeros, or visa versa. But when the Zero was trying to knock down and enemy bomber it was typically faced with a well armoured target sprouting fifty calibre mgs as opposed to the notoriously flammable opposition the Hellcats encountered. Inevitably this would affect the Zeros kill/loss ratio as compared to the Hellcats.
Added to this is the fact that Pilot claims are inherently unreliable (how could they be otherwise in the confusion of battle) and overstating of victories and understating of losses is endemic to warfare. Look at the ludicrous 15:1 ratio often quoted for the Sabre in Korea. I suspect that Kill/loss ratios are generally useful in assessing, with diminishing relevance:
1) The capacity of the claimants side for believing their own BS
2) The tactical and strategic situations of the period
3) Lastly and leastly, the relative merits of the aircraft involved

To put my own postings in perspective, I am not arguing with those who don't like the kill ratio as a reasonable variable, I simply state that I DO like it and disagree with you. Hopefully, I am allowed to do that.

I've been looking into Axis kill credits for more than 50 years and have never seen a comprehensive list of WWII Axis victories or losses. Sure, I have Hartmamnn's complete list of voctories (and his mount when claiming the victories is NOT in the list ... but we know MOST were with the Me 109), but that is only one pilot. I do not believe any list exists of aggregate Bf / Me 109 claims and losses, or Fw 190 either. I wish it DID, but have yet to find it. So, although I like the kill ratio as a meaningful measure, many critical data are simply missing and I can't really use it except to compare American and some British aircraft. So ... it's meaning is less than it might be despite the fact that I like the variable, and I already said that earlier.

I have a list of all fighter kills, but the plane being flown by the victor is NOT in the data ... only the victim, and sometimes not even the victim type ... just a kill.

Some of you guys seem to want to fight about it. Please, let's not. It's not about who is right, it is simply a number that can be calculated by an interested party. I like the kill ratio and you don't. It is as simple as that. I will draw my own conclusions with it and not print them in here.

I frequent this forum for fun only, not for argument's sake.

Sorry Buffnut, I know you like the Buffalo. I feel it was the worst American fighter of WWII to make production. You don't have to agree, and that doesn't mean it was all bad ... it's just that everything else was better, again, in MY book, not necesarily yours. Aesthetically, it classic art deco and not ugly, but also not my cup of tea. The P-35 looks similar and I like it MUCH better aesthetically, even though they made only about 136 of them and it flew two years earlier than the Buffalo. You are welcome to love the Buffalo and, yes, I know the Buffalo performed better rthan the P-35. They are rough contemporaries, but with only 136 P-35's built, it is pretty much of a non-starter. You can imagine my opinion of a plane with less than 50 built ... like the Ta-152. It was very interesting and a very good effort, but meaningless to the outcome of the war.

The Finish experience with all of 43 or so Buffalos is a very small sample that simply doesn't not statistically mean anything; it is way too small a sample. If you took a random sample, 43 would be significant, but you'd also likely not have but 1 or 2 Finish Buffalos in an unbiased random sample. The Fins had a uniquely good experience that was WAY better than all the other users had. We should have sold them all 509 airframes! Maybe the war would have been shorter.

Guys, it doesn't matter if you liike the kill ratio or not and it is simply not worth fighting about. If you like it, use it to draw your own conclusions. If you don't, then by all means iignore it. I would use it much more if we had more data. Since we don't, I use it as I see fit and continue looking for more data on Axis victory and loss data. Who knows? I might even find it someday.

I am very results oriented, and don't much look at circumstances, weather, or anything else. Those should have been taken into account by the mission or operation planners. If they were, then the mission was more probably a success. If not, it still might be a success, but luck can be both good as well as bad.

Greg,

Again, my gripe is with your statement that the nature of a loss is irrelevant - I simply added the other data to show how far off your figure of 150 was. I wasn't putting forth any argument about the Buffalo's qualities (good or bad) - you'll note I said that I had nothing to compare the figures against so it's kindda hard to argue from monolithic data!

Cheers,
B-N

The figure of about 150 is not "my figure," it comes from several sources, including on the internet. I know a lot were lost early in the Pacific war. How they were lost is unimportant to me ... they were ineffective in the extreme since they did almost nothing in the war except get lost quickly with little or no contribution to the war's outcome. That is almost a definition of "ineffective." The Buffalo is a footnote at best in my account of WWII aircraft and, if not in yours, then by all means, laud it to your heart's content.

The USA made about 300,000 aircraft in WWII. So the Buffalo account for about 0.16% of the US aircraft production. It is relatively meaningless to me except as an interesting bird and, being one of the earliest Naval monoplanes, almost everything else improved upon it. It is historic, to be sure, but simply not one I pay any attention to. There are several others ...

I think the Beechcraft A-38 Grizzly would have been one heck of an attack plane ... but it was not proceeded with, so another interesting aircraft went the way of the Dodo. I LIKE it, but it went nowhere, so it is an interesting footnote at best. People can safely ignore it and not be out of sorts with history. Though the Buffalo was more successful and made production, I feel it is in the same broad category of interesting planes that went nowhere in real life. You, rather obviously, think otherwise.

I hope you can eventually see one fly somewhere ... I'd like to see it, too, effetive or otherwise, along with a few other "rare" birds. We have a few at the Planes of Fame and happen to have a Republic / Seversky AT-12, which is a 2-seat version of the Seversky P-35 built as a fighter-trainer. Altogether a neat aircraft, even if historically meaningless to the war, too. We also occasionally fly a Boeing P-26 "Peashooter," which I never liked until I saw it in person. Now it is one of my favorites. It climbs quite well and is VERY maneuverable. Doesn't make it a great fighter, and it wasn't, but IS a very neat plane to see fly. I'm glad I'm not the one cranking on the intertia starter!

Greg, I really don't understand what you're saying here. We're supposed to be talking about kill-to-loss ratios. A key factor in that is the loss end of the equation. I was simply trying to provide some better information than your grossly inaccurate figure of 150.

Whether a particular aircraft type made a contribution and whether it was produced in large numbers or not are irrelevant to this discussion because, irrespective, most fighter aircraft have a measurable kill-to-loss ratio that can be compared with other aircraft types (exceptions are aircraft like the Boomerang which never achieved an aerial victory).

I suppose I don;t understand you, eithern Buffnut.

The early war losses were stated by some else, Buffnut. I could not care less about the number, which is between 120 and 150 depending on who you believe, and grossly inaccurate or not. They were MOSTLY not lost in air combat, so they mostly don't enter into a kill ratio. They simply contribute to the types ineffectiveness. I simply said I LIKE the kill ratio as a measure and you apparently don't.

Please let it go and be happy not liking it.

So you like kill-to-loss as a measure but then want to cite losses to all causes for one particular aircraft type? That's what's confusing me. So if we find that an aircraft has a 1:1 kill/loss ratio (which isn't bad in WWII terms) would you say that aircraft was ineffective? I'm simply trying to understand your statements which, to me, are contradictory.

By the way, I think kill-to-loss is as good a measure of combat effectiveness as any other...it's just that there are so many more variables that there is no really effective way to measure combat effectiveness between different aircraft types unless they were operating in the exact same theatre, under the same conditions, and undertaking pretty much identical mission profiles.

Yes, in air combat a 1 : 1 ratio is not good. I'm talking about air-to-air combat kills versus air-to-air combat losses, not operational losses.

Operational losses should be taken into account in overal effectiveness, but not for combat potential.

Total combat effectiveness, combat and operations, might be something like (air-to-air kills plus air-to-ground kills divided by air-to-air losses plus operartional losses).

Total effectiveness might something like (air-to-air kills plus air-to-ground kills divided by air-to-air losses plus operational losses plus non-combat losses not directly operational).

Non-combat losses not directly operational might be planes lost due to being captured by enemy bround forces as just one example.

The thing is, Buffnut, we don't really HAVE the data for complete air-to-air kills and losses only, much less the rest. There seems to be nobody out there with the data for the major types on both sides. And governments aren't seemingly interested in maing these data available either. I'd like to make some comments about the various calculations above, but I have only VERY incomplete data, so I can't SAY what the Me 109 numbers are, and seemingly nobody else can either.

I DO have some wild conjections from several people who claim to know, but they have no sources for their data ... and again I am left wondering, but not finding the real data. The US Navy published pretty good data and I have it, but almost nobody else did that I can find. Calculating the numbers for the US Navy is not an exercise that I am willing to do unless I have MORE data since I'd have nothing else with which to compare it to. If you know the US Navy WWII numbers and nothing else, it is useless data.

The model is faulty, because it doesnt take into account the specific or general circumstances of each combat. Factors to include might include pilot skills, number ratios, whether one side is on the offense or defense. The amount of flak the weather sates. These might all saffect the outcomes of combats in a very tangible way. Beyond that is the general situation on the ground....if one side is being overrun on the ground, it will fly its a/c regardless of the overall situation...

And the randomizing effect of these and other peculiairities may not necessarily tend to even out with time. The allies were on the attack for more than 4 years during the war, which means all their combats are going to be influenced by that strategic precondition.

Parsfail, you MADE my entire point! Thanks.

The number ratio and circumstances, et al, don't matter at all in war ... only the results. The rest is for posterity, but has NOTHING to do with the results. The factors indicate bravery or lack thereof, competence or lack thereof, good planning or lack thereof, but only the results make a difference in the end. The rest is fodder for argument, but inconsequential to the outcome. The winner is the winner and the loser is the loser. If the tradeoffs are equal, then it is a draw or close to it. If the draw leaves the enemy (or YOU) lacking in offensive equipment, such as the Japanese after Midway, then the draw is an obvious victory in hindshight. If not, it is a draw or a loss if the situation is the other way.

A fighter in the ring who is beating his opponent thoroughly but the opponent suddenly flashes a knowckout punch still loses the fight. It's the same in war; a loss is a loss and a win is a win. Circumstances don't matter at all. The cirumstances are vital to the parties at the time, and are nothing to sneer at, but meaningless to the people who write history in the end.

I firmly believe that. If anyone doesn't, perhaps he or she thinks the Axis won the war? If so, boom ... they fail World History 101. Just goes to show the first round is NOT an indicator of victory if your opponent survives the round. You STILL have to finish. Luck plays a part.

The British finding the Bismark at JUST the right time and the torpedo hit on the rudder was LUCK. The two events helped the British at the time. Luck is fickle and helped the Germans, too ... just not enough to make a difference in the outcome.

Circumstances have nothing to do with the effectiveness of an aircraft in combat. The results DO. You might get shot down because you didn't see your opponent, but you still got shot down. Likewise if YOU are the one who gets the victory ...

For once I agree with most of what's being said here.

My only minor observation is your statement that "The cirumstances are vital to the parties at the time, and are nothing to sneer at, but meaningless to the people who write history in the end." Surely the job of historians is to work out why things happened given the benefit of hindsight and understanding the circumstances is a vital part of that work.

But I digress....again!

Buffnut, the circumstances at the time make for great stories, novels and movies ... and are the stuff that makes some guy (or outfit, etc.) a hero or a villian. Yes, they affect the outcome, but the outcome is what mostly gets recorded in history.

A huge exception was the 400 Spartans who made a heroic stand. Much had been written about it, but the Spartans lost and people sometimes are enamored enough about the glory to think the Spartans WON. Go figure.

In WWII the outcome, even of a battle or a campaign, is what most people remember this far down the line in time. The kids coming out of high school don't even know that much, they usually know the Allies won and the Axis lost and that's about it. Most don't even have an opinion about Viet Nam, and I was there and it was real for me.

So the circumstance are huge at the time ... but shrink to being unimportant over time, while the results still stand in the end. I like to read about the circumstances, weather, deployment, etc., but I'm probably in the minority in even caring about those things ... at least 50+ years later.

GregP said:

A huge exception was the 400 Spartans who made a heroic stand. Much had been written about it, but the Spartans lost and people sometimes are enamored enough about the glory to think the Spartans WON. Go figure.

Click to expand...

The myths about Thermopylae are mostly wrong as well there might have been 300 Spartans at the last stand but there were also approximately 700 thespians 400 Thebans 900 Phocians and possibly up to 900 Spartan Helots who were the Spartan auxilliaries involved in the final battles. Thats the thing about myths the facts usually get in the way of a good story.

for what its worth.....

"Spitfire vs Bf 109: Battle of Britain" by Tony Holmes does give some ratios for the BoB. Pages 71-72 state that;

Overall, during the four months of the Battle of Britain, 361 Spitfires were lost and a further 352 damaged. Fortunately for Fighter Command and the free world, production of the aircraft far outstripped attrition, with 747 Spitfire I/IIs being delivered in the summer and autumn of 1940.
During this same period, the Jagdwaffe lost 610 Bf 109s, which compares favorably to Fighter Command's 1,023 Spitfires and Hurricanes. Of course, the only targets presented to the Jagdflieger during this period were fighters and it appears that they claimed around 770 of the aircraft lost by Fighter Command. This gave the Bf 109E pilots a favorable kill ratio of 1.2:1, but this was nowhere near the 5:1 target that Oberst Theo Osterkamp (Jafu 2) had set his pilots in July in order to achieve the desired air superiority required for 'Sea Lion'.

Click to expand...