Kill Totals

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


I haven't done the research on the other plane kills howeverthe P-38 is credited with over 5,700 in the PTo and a further 2,500 in the ETO these totals include 608 in the med and 1,082 in the CBI.

The P-51 also had just less than 1,000 kills in theaters other than the ETO for a total of 5,932 for the war.
 

These are numbers accepted by aviation historians, the Air Force accepts 15,863 for the entire war and all AAF aircraft. I understand in Europe aircraft destroyed on the ground are counted as kills. If that adjustment was made to these numbers (ground kills deducted) then the deductions were only applied to the P-47 and the P-38 as I've seen the P-47 number quite a bit higher as well (around 7,000 for the war) the historically accepted numbers certainly are higher than the Air Force numbers so some adjustments have been made. If adjustments have been made it's interesting that No deductions have been made to the P-51 and almost 5,000 have been deducted from the P-38 scores - could this be related to the AAF claims that there were no planes available for long range escort before the P-51Bs arrived, when the P-38 had been sucessfuly doing it for almost a year?
 
Japanese Major Aircraft Types Losses to Major USN Combat Types in Air-to-Air Action:

F6F - 5163
F4U/FG - 2137
FM - 422
F4F - 905
S2BC/SBW - 43
SBD - 138
TBF/TBM - 98
PB4Y - 210
PBY - 13
PB2Y - 5
PBM - 11
PV - 5
Total - 9150

At the same time the USN Losses and resultant Japanese:USN Ratio: -

F6F – 270; ratio = 19.1 to 1
F4U/FG - 189; ratio = 11.3 to 1
FM - 13; ratio = 32.5 to 1
F4F - 178; ratio = 5.1 to 1
S2BC/SBW - 18; ratio = 2.4 to 1
SBD - 79; ratio = 1.7 to 1
TBF/TBM - 47; ratio = 2.1 to 1
PB4Y - 28; ratio = 7.5 to 1
PBY – 36; ratio = 0.4 to 1
PB2Y - 0; ratio = 8.0 to 1
PBM - 3; ratio = 3.7 to 1
PV - 6; ratio = 0.8 to 1
Total - 867; ratio = 10.6 to 1

Japanese Losses by Type to USN Aircraft -
A6M Series - 3896
Ki-43 - 529
Ki-61 - 477
Ki-44 - 385
Ki-27 - 145
Ki-84 - 144
J2M - 49
N1K - 35
C6N - 55
Unident SE VF/VO - 247
D3A - 801
D4Y - 271
B5N - 203
B6N - 174
Unident S/E VB/VT - 51
A6M2-N - 71
E13A - 128
F1M - 47
Unident S/E Float - 96
G3M - 34
Ki-21 - 88
G4M - 477
Ki-46 - 82
Ki-45 - 77
J1N - 41
P1Y - 149
Ki-48 - 57
Ki-49 - 25
Ki-67 - 10
Unident T/E Combat - 227
Flying Boats - 69
Transports - 80
Trainers - 29
TOTAL - 9249

Regards,

Rich


 
I haven't done the research on the other plane kills however the P-38 is credited with over 5,700 in the PTo
Click to expand...

That must be a good trick. The USAAF Statistical Digest reports that all USAAF fighters combined, only accounted for total of 3960 shootdowns in the Pacific operating areas. Another 1063 were reported destroyed on the ground by, again, all fighters combined. That's a total of 5023. (Data from USAAFSD tables 169, 170, 171, 172)
 
Did the Japenese even have 5700 to be shot down solely by the P-38 on top of the thousands lost to other aircraft?
 
I've spent a little time looking into Japanese aircraft loses versus Allied claims. I started down this road after being most abruptly, and somewhat rudely, informed by a poster in a forum elsewhere that the USN and AAF shot down more Japanese aircraft than the Japanese ever had. I found that a little hard to believe, but it is a little difficult for me to argue a point without the numbers to back it up. That event was a long time ago and I don't even remember where it occurred. So, over time I've accumulated bits and pieces of data and file it away to cogitate over. Anyway. some of the information is pretty easy to come by. Other pieces to the puzzle are missing and leave great big blank spots. Some of those blanks can be roughly filled in with some guesstimates based on statistical extrapolation, the rest remain as holes in the data. I'll be happy to share what I've found (or guessed . . . errr calculated). Perhaps some of you folks have some data to fill in some of the whole.

Starting with the Japanese and mostly working from the reports compiled in the USSBS:

Aircraft on Hand 7 December: Unknown. However, we can determine how many aircraft were produced prior to December 1941 that were of types that were operational during the war:
Aircraft Produced (including Prototypes Trainers) prior to December 1941: 15,233
Aircraft Produced (less Prototypes) prior to December 1941: 15,217
Aircraft Produced (less Prototypes Trainers) prior to December 1941: 12,137

Again, how many of these were on hand on 7 December is unknown. Based upon operating experiences of other services, one would expect the vast majority of unit assigned aircraft, i.e., not prototypes and not trainers, were probably available. In my calculations I was careful to exclude those types that were obsolete and in the process of phasing out as the war began, thus leaving only those types likely to see active service during the war.

And once the war started, with production numbers starting from 1 December 1941:
Aircraft Produced (including Prototypes) through August 1945: 70,975
Aircraft Produced (less Prototypes) through August 1945: 70,976
Aircraft Produced (less Prototypes Trainers) through August 1945: 55,973

Compared to losses:
Reported JNAF Losses, Combat: 10,370
Reported JNAF Losses, Operational: 16,750
Reported JAAF Losses, Combat: 16,255
Reported JAAF Losses, Operational: 7,580
Total Combat Losses: 26,625
Total Operational Losses: 24,330
Total Losses: 55,955

Based on the USN experience, and especially in the Solomons Campaign, I have calculated that roughly 15% of the Japanese operational losses were probably combat related as opposed to accidents. These would be planes that went out on combat missions and were never heard from again, that were probably lost due to combat damage and went down without any friendly witnesses. This number I take off the operational losses and add back to the combat losses:

Calculated Japanese Losses, Combat: 30,275
Calculated Japanese Losses, Operational: 20,680

Balance of Aircraft Available from December 1941 through August 1945 production (less Prototypes): 19,881
Balance of Aircraft Available from December 1941 through August 1945 production (less Prototypes Trainers): 4,978

Working from USN and USAAF end of war statistical studies:

USN claims:
Air to Air Combat: 9,291
Destroyed on Ground: 5,854
Sub total: 15,145

USAAF claims:
Air to Air Combat: 6,368
Destroyed on Ground: 2,750
Destroyed, Unspecified: 1,225
Sub total: 10,343

Total US Forces Claims:
Air to Air Combat: 15,659
Destroyed on Ground: 8,604
Destroyed, Unspecified: 1,225
Total: 25,488

From other sources:

RNZAF claims: 103

NEIAF claims: 62

AVG claims: 296

FAA claims: (still working on that one, uh, one, two, three, four . . . )

RAF claims: ???

RAAF claims: ???

And . . .
US AA fire claims: This one is a little tough because I don't believe anyone ever counted. There's also the problem of multiple ships shooting a single targets, kind of like the problem of apportioning credit to bomber formations for destruction of interceptors. I've some information on shootdowns with VT fused AA fire and the general rule of thumb was that the VT fused shells improved efficiency by about 60%. So working backwards and forwards from the data I have and allowing for the general tempo of operations I've estimated this number to be 550. This is probably a little high.

Thus, so far, I've come up with a total of about 26,499 Japanese planes destroyed either in the air or on the ground as a result of some combat action. Frankly, just looking at that number and keeping in mind the results I have yet to obtain on other Allied forces, I really can't see it going over 27,000.

Comparing the Japanese reported combat losses to the estimated 27,000 Allied claims, we come up with a variance of 375 in over-claims, roughly 1.4% of the total reported Japanese losses. On the other hand, comparing the calculated Japanese combat losses to the estimated 27,000 Allied claims, we come up with a variance of 3275 in under-claims, roughly 10.8% of calculated Japanese combat losses. In perfect world, with perfect information, I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between. In any case, it looks as though the Japanese combat losses compared to Allied claims should at least come out even.

Also of interest is the balance of Japanese wartime production to the total Japanese losses, 19,881. An interesting number because it far exceeds what the Allied forces found upon the occupation of the Japanese home islands. They found on hand some 12,741 aircraft of all types, including 720 fighters, 69 transports, 1,118 trainers, 37 gliders, and 10,797 "miscellaneous" (which, one would presume included such nefarious types as bombers, floatplanes, and seaplanes as well as a few late war prototypes).

Even with the presumption that there were Japanese aircraft located outside the home island (and there were) is it rational to believe that they numbered in excess of 7,100 when compared to the number that should be left just from wartime production? Is it reasonable to believe that they numbered almost 22,500. I could, with a large stretch of imagination, maybe, just maybe, believe that there could be 7,100 Japanese aircraft overseas, not in the home islands, at the end of the war, but I'd never believe there were 22,500. So, I'm left with an interesting question. Where did all these airplanes come from, or, better, where did they go? Or did the occupation forces simply screw up their count? Or, (Gasp!) could the Japanese have understated their losses?

I dunno.

At any rate, I am perfectly satisfied that the USN and USAAF certainly did not claim to have destroyed more airplanes than the Japanese ever had. I am also perfectly satisfied that the USN and USAAF did not claim to have destroyed more airplanes that the Japanese admitted to losing in combat.

Any light that anyone could shine on the issue would be welcomed.

Regards,

Rich
 

USAAF Totals are somewhat politicaly biased towords the P-51 which has had a few kills added in the ETO tally alone. The totals I gave are the standard ones used by Aviation Historians. The P-38 is universaly recognized as the plane (American) that shot down the most Japanese aircraft in WWII in the pacific - the Hellcat shot down 5,300?. It doesn't add up using AAF numbers. If you look into the matter you will also find that the P-47 has also had between 3,000 to 3,500 kills lopped off its totals. I urge you to research a little more before you take the AAF numbers as gospel.

I am willing to change my mind if data is presented that shows in an unbiased way what the truth is. I don't want to use inaccurate info either, but I will use the Historicaly Accepted numbers until then.

I think, and the record shows the P-38 was there when it was needed, did the job against terrible odds (and sometimes itself) and finished the war as the best or right there at the leading edge. The P-38 got no breaks in WWII. In the ETO it was there when it was needed but not wanted - can you say "Congressional Investigation?" not my words but encountered often when researching the P-38.
 
The RAF kills would be pretty good, seeing as of 1943 the Spitfire Mk. VIII was slaughtering the Japs.
 
plan_D said:
The RAF kills would be pretty good, seeing as of 1943 the Spitfire Mk. VIII was slaughtering the Japs.
Click to expand...

The RAF did good too.

I also know that there are claims made that didn't do down and in the Pacific pilots (over water where debris dissapears)observing pilots like Bong, Maguire and Lynch reported many aircraft that were losing pieces, streaming flame or without pilots that were not even claimed. The reality will never be known.
 
I'm reading a book about Burma at the moment (It's fantastic) which talks about everything involved - including air combats. I MIGHT be able to help with RAF CBI kills.
 

The numbers I use for fighter totals in the Pacific are ARE the official USAAF numbers as published in the USAAF Statistical Digest for World War II.

As far as what happened in the air over Europe is concerned I really have no interest unless it involves aircraft carriers or, only and specifically, the USAAF 405th FS which my uncle was commanding when he was KIA in January 45. Other than those exceptions, and certainly meaning no offense to those who have great interest in the European facets of the war, I've simply no interest at all. Probably similar to the lack of interest in the Pacific that some "Europe Firsters" have. Again, no offense intended, but I figure one has just so much time so I spend what very little free time I have for historical interests on the Pacific War, and specifically Naval Aviation with the USAAF kind of hovering out there on the perimeter.

If I read you correctly you are saying that the USAAF, an organization that was hot on the trail of becoming an independent USAF, deliberately shaved its scores???! You are without a doubt the only person I've ever heard make such a statement. In fact, most would say that they, and any other service, from any country, inflated their scores. Not, mind you deliberately, pilots reported what they thought they saw. I have no information on how the USAAF analyzed their debriefs. I can wax on and on about the USN and its ACIO program through which all claims had to filter.

Since I tend to deal in the claims of the period as opposed to someones long, long, postwar analysis (and some of them are very good, John Lundstrom comes to mind) my numbers, which come from the USAAFSD (1947) or Naval Aviation Combat Statistics for World War II (1946) tend to be a little high. I also use the USSBS data and for quick referral the USSBS The Campaigns of the Pacific (Naval Analysis Division - 1946) or USSBS Air Campaigns of the Pacific War (Military Analysis Division - 1947) tend to be a little high, not low. Also, most modern research/scholarship tend to drive the number of claims down, not up, as they tend to compare them to the oppostition's reported losses. Yet, from what I read you to say, your sources advocate driving the up?

Perhaps you could cite some sources that support your numbers?

Regards,

Rich
 

I understand those numbers were AAF. My point is that those numbers are politicaly motivated to a large extenet. I find it hard to reconcile numbers like this:

P-51 Aviation Historians (several thousand strong comparing claims to actuals for 60 years) list the ETO total at 4,937 AAF total is 4950, 13 planes added?

P-38 Aviation Historion ETO at 2,500+, 5730 PTO, AAF total 1,771 and 1,800 PTO Are 4,659 kills dissalowed, even with verification?

P-47 A/H 7,000+ for the war AAF 3,500+ another 3,500 dissalowed?

Granted the P-47 originaly had a higher % of ground kills as they were used for ground attack much more - but the P-51 also shot up many airfields still had kills ADDED.

Why only P-47 and P-38 sores dissalowed? Maybe only P-51 pilots, and guncam photos told the truth? Where did the extra kills come from?

The Aviation Historians have been looking at these numbers for 60 years whose reputations rested in getting the facts correct. They also didn't have their profesional Reputations (as the AAF had) based on the availability/performance of the P-51 not being available until early/mid '44 after it was discovered escort was required. Vrs the capability of the already available P-38 to do escort work effectively.

I respect your position, I've been away from WWII aircraft for years (I was a construction project manager no time for much else) and just got back into the subject so I have a few gaps too.

I am willing to modify/change my position when and if unbiased information is presented that changes one or the other set of figures. The AAF numbers just don't make sense when compared to the historical record.

You have a lot of data there on the Japanese, it will take a while to fully digest.

I appoligize if I have been to vociferous in any of my comments this is a great forum and I enjoy the time I spend here enormously. Ultimately this is for fun though I get a little serious on occasion.
 
R Leonard said:
Can you point me to an aviation historian who presents your case and backs it up with evidence? I'd like to see this for myself.
Thanks!

Rich
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, It doesn't make sense Except (and only marginaly there) where there are tens of thousands of lost aircrew when an escort was available they hung their hat on the P-51 and it's polliticaly correct timing.

A source is http://p-38online.com/index.html Check the section on operations, ETO, the return.

I will check on the PTO source. many just say the plane that shot the most Japanese aircraft down which isn't enough to answer your question.

Your skepticisim is good! I honestly feel the P-38 can stand on it's own with out embelishments.
 
And I'm not trying to slam you for repeating something you've heard or read elsewhere.

Simply I find it hard to believe that with squadron, group, and wing reports available in the National Archives or at the USAF historical repositories that someone can compile a count that is at variance with the "official results". If someone has taken it upon themselves to credit "probables" as "confirmed" then maybe he could run up the numbers to the levels you recall.

The USAF conducted a review of the records in the mid-1950s and produced a list of credited victories in 1957. The results were different that those reported in the USAAFSD.

The Air Force counted WWII aerial victory credits for USAAF flyers, or Allied aviators who belonged to USAAF units. The action had to occur between December 7, 1941 and September 2, 1945. Only fighter pilots or members of night fighter crews were eligible. The enemy aircraft had to be airborne, heavier than air, manned, and armed. Destruction involved shooting an enemy aircraft down, causing the pilot to bail out, intentionally ramming the airplane to make it crash, or maneuvering it into the ground or water. If the enemy airplane landed, despite its degree of damage, it was not counted as destroyed.

When two or more of its fighter pilots shared an aerial victory, the Air Force divided credit among them. For example, if two fighter pilots destroyed an enemy aircraft, each of them earned half a credit (.50). The exception was night fighter crews. Each crewmember earned one full credit for each enemy aircraft destroyed. This resulted in two or three credits recorded for the destruction of a single enemy airplane in these cases

So, the USAAFSD reported aerial victories in the Pacific as 4,040 and destroyed on the ground as 1,080 (the numbers in my previous post omitted the 20th AF fighter results, mea culpa). The 1957 analysis dealt only in aerial credits and has nothing to say about airplanes destroyed on the ground. The total for the Pacific from the 1957 report was 4,883. The report list pilot, unit, date, and credit, including partial credits. This is 793 or 19.6 percent higher than the total from the USAAFSD, but still does not come even close to allowing for your source's 5730 P-38 only Pacific Theater victories.

The irony here is that just about everyone else one might bump into in a forum such as this usually decries overclaiming in the officially reported results. As I alluded to before, I've never, ever heard of anyone claiming the official results don't claim enough, especially in terms of being thousands short.

I'd still be interested in reviewing your source's data.

Regards,

Rich
 
I have seen a pic of the US 422nd nfs score board and it was 1 a/c = 1 kill, although the pilot and radar operator were given a kill apiece it was not added to the overall tally of the squadron. Besides I have the squadron microfische for all their kills and this confirms this besides the personal interviews with US nfs personell.
As to the Pacific I am not sure but at least for this squadron as well as the sister 425th it was the same for both; have the 425th nfs microfische as well. I was a friend for several years of the US night fighters association before the break-up of the group

Kopf hoch !
 
The shared kill method was not always excercised. It was mostly confined to the situation in Europe. If have read of a pair of pilots in the PTO who shared a kill. Their solution was to flip a coin to see who got the credit!
 
Just a reminder, not my analysis; I am only reporting how the USAF worked out its 1957 credits analysis as a matter of historical interest. Suggest that problems with the methodology of that analysis should be directed to the USAF.

Regards,

Rich
 

It's not worth fighting the Dept. of the Air Force after 60 years we - aircraft enthusiasts and still living pilots are the only ones who care. Incidently Art Heiden asked Martin Caiden to wright about the P-38 because, as a P-38 pilot, he wanted the record stated correctly. The resulting book is great, if not always kind to the P-38.

I know your not slamming me, It's also tough with so much said about the P-38 that's all over the board. I've also taken the 5730 and melded it with the frequent comment about the P-38 shooting the most Japanese aircraft down - my bad. I haven't found my source on the number (when I found it, more than once, I didn't expect to have to reproduce it nor did expect to have trouble finding it again). Here are some references I have found:

The Smithsonian "Lightning pilots downed more Japanese aircraft than pilots flying any other Allied plane" http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/areo/aircraft/lockheed_p38.html

Rand McNally Encyclopdia of Military Aircraft page 230: "War records attribute the P-38 credit for shooting down more Japanese aircraft than any other American aircraft"

The same reference a few pages later on the F6F: "An impressive story: of the 6,477 enemy aircraft destroyed in combat by this aircraft, as many as 4,947 fell victim to carrier based F6Fs." No differintation of ground kills but it shows the awareness of the magnitude of the P-38 statement.

Marten Caiden in his book "Fork Tail Devils - The P-38" Wrote " The P-38 shot down more Japanese aircraft than any other aircraft." Mr Caiden also notes that there was much combat damage to the records of the 5th Air Force.

I will run down the source of the 5,730 number.

Your skeptisism is welcomed, I would be to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

R
F-4B MiG killer for Dan McIntyre and Alan Johnson
Replies
10
Views
2K
fubar57
LUFTWAFFE GROUND KILLS
Replies
10
Views
5K
stona
S
H
German fighter info concerning particular B-17 shot down
Replies
13
Views
5K
jasonmchenry
W
Kill totals by type
Replies
2
Views
3K
Waynos
W
Three different Axis kills
Replies
2
Views
3K
hawkeye2an
Menu
Log in
Register