Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
How do you arrive at these statistics and what do you draw from them? LW bombers were not shooting down RAF fighters at an exchange of 1 to 3. LW fighters were trying to stop RAF fighters shooting down their bombers. The loss of an RAF fighter is irrelevant, only the pilot matters. The British were producing 500 fighters a month from August and returning a similar number of damaged aircraft to service. Around 35% of RAF pilots shot down were completely unharmed, a similar percentage killed with injuries of varying severity making up the rest. So the loss rate of RAF fighters can be almost halved. A count of German bombers lost over UK doesnt take account of those that made it back to France and never took off again. Many crash landed or were wrecked on landing and there was very limited capacity to repair them on LW temporary airfields. Also some the crew members were dead or injured even if the plane did land with slight damage. So in round numbers your bomber loss rate can be doubled. This is why Goering stopped bombing attacks with twin engined bombers and switched to Jabo attacks in October, he had lost in the war of attrition.As I read it the claim numbers posted are the wartime awards, not post war investigation.
In the Battle of Britain it looks like the Luftwaffe Bombers, Do17, Do215, He111, Ju87, and Ju88 shot down around 1 fighter for every 3 bombers lost to fighters.
All I'm saying is that it should have been delivered from the factory with the capability of at lease one external tank. Like the other AAF fighters.Some of the criticism for the P-47 seems to be unwarranted.
Please remember that the P-47 was ordered into production in Sept 1940, when the BoB was still being fought. Because it was a large and complex machine to took while to get into service. Please note that the P-40E was only ordered a few months earlier (and wasn't deliver until nearly a year later) and the P-40F wasn't flown until the summer of 1941 (after the XP-47) the first production P-40Fs weren't until the summer of 1942 (after the P-47Bs in trickling out).
In the summer of 1942 the US had plans for 3 high altitude possible fighters. With the 4th somewhat further away. (and others even further way)
They had the P-38 (and with only 300 gallons of internal fuel it had problems too, although the external tanks would help.
The P-40F with Merlin engine was available but didn't have either the performance or range needed.
The P-40Allison engine versions and the P-39 just won't the provided the needed performance for the bombers at any distance (even escorting over the English channel)
That leaves the P-47 and a P-47 with internal fuel has more range ( not a lot more but bit more) than the P-40F even with a 52 gallon drop tank.
Please remember that the P-47 was being introduced on 3 different production lines and they were building about 60 P-47s a month the summer of 1942.
They were cutting sheet metal on the P-51s with 2 stage Merlin prototypes when P-47s went over 100 planes a month.
P-40Fs were sent to North Africa and the P-38s were also sent to North Africa so there were darn few ways for the 8th AF to try to figure out how to use any type of escort fighters in the ETO in late and 1942 or early 1943.
The P-47 was a general purpose fighter for most it's early planned in career in 1941/42. Heck, even the Fisher XP-75 was planned as a fast climbing interceptor in 1942/early 1943 and not an escort fighter.
Blaming the P-47 for not being an escort that could fly 500-600 radius missions in late 1943 or early 1944 seems to be leaning on the retrospectroscope rather heavily.
Hey Thump, I was looking at your avatar which I assume is you with one of your many guitars, it's a pretty cool shot except that hat threw me, for a second I thought you had one hell of a blond pompadour hairdoo going on there.It is a characteristic. It is not the only one.
I personally find it amusing that a P-39 fanboi would slag another fighter for having short range.
The loss lists were drawn from a number of the many books on the Battle of Britain. The Fighter Command Losses series, the Battle of Britain Then and Now series, Battle Over Britain for example, the occasional archive mention. Losses include write offs.How do you arrive at these statistics and what do you draw from them?
How do you arrive at these statistics and what do you draw from them?LW bombers were not shooting down RAF fighters at an exchange of 1 to 3.
Actually no, apart from the losses in combat plus training there were the damaged, then comes the major increase in flying hours meant more and more aircraft were hitting their routine maintenance hours, requiring replacement in the units, plus more aircraft for the training system to try and give new pilots as much experience as possible. Then add the inevitable problems with spare parts supply, bad enough without a major surge in activity. So if the pilot was safe we can discount the loss of the aircraft, does this logic apply when the pilot is lost but the aircraft is not, we can discount the pilot loss?The loss of an RAF fighter is irrelevant, only the pilot matters.
Fascinating non logic. Looking at the loss records of both sides Bungay concludes over the course of the Battle of Britain the Bf109s scored 5 kills against RAF fighters for every 4 Bf109s lost.So the loss rate of RAF fighters can be almost halved.
You are missing the German fighters, there are quite a lot of them.The loss lists were drawn from a number of the many books on the Battle of Britain. The Fighter Command Losses series, the Battle of Britain Then and Now series, Battle Over Britain for example, the occasional archive mention. Losses include write offs.
I include German fighters in the discussion, see above.How do you arrive at these statistics and what do you draw from them?
You read Bungay and post this? Read it again the text not just the tables. Are the fighters shot down by Bf 109s in addition to those shot down by the bombers (you said 1 to 3) or are they all the same? I have the book, which page does he detail RAF fighters lost to bombers at a ratio of 1 to 3? The RAF started with circa 500 fighters (fall of France), this rose to around 700, but the quality of the pilots dropped which led to the reorganisation into A, B and C class squadrons. Without escorts German bombers got badly mauled which is why the JU87 was quickly removed and unescorted bomber raids across the N Sea were stopped very quickly. Bombers did not shoot down the RAF fighters at a rate of 1 to 3 which was the point under discussion, please do not digress onto other hobby horses.Actually no, apart from the losses in combat plus training there were the damaged, then comes the major increase in flying hours meant more and more aircraft were hitting their routine maintenance hours, requiring replacement in the units, plus more aircraft for the training system to try and give new pilots as much experience as possible. Then add the inevitable problems with spare parts supply, bad enough without a major surge in activity. So if the pilot was safe we can discount the loss of the aircraft, does this logic apply when the pilot is lost but the aircraft is not, we can discount the pilot loss?
Using the figures from Stephen Bungay in his book The Most Dangerous Enemy for a moment, the RAF lost a total of 1,023 fighters during the battle to all causes, mostly single seaters, Wood and Dempster note 507 aircrew deaths. So where does the 35% figure pilots shot down figure come from? Bungay also has a break down of RAF losses 10 July to 11 August 1940, 13% of the fighters hit by bomber gunners were shot down, compared with 62% of the fighters hit by Bf109s. In pilot casualties, half the pilots in the fighters hit by Bf109s were killed, compared with 10% of the fighters hit by bomber gunners.
Fascinating non logic. Looking at the loss records of both sides Bungay concludes over the course of the Battle of Britain the Bf109s scored 5 kills against RAF fighters for every 4 Bf109s lost.
The number of RAF losses is well known as is the number of Luftwaffe bombers lost. If you halve the number of RAF fighters lost to bombers take a look at what it does to the fighter versus fighter ratio.
It would be interesting to see what happens if someone uses your sort of logic but the year is 1944, the fighters Luftwaffe and the bombers USAAF.
So giving details of Luftwaffe bomber losses has the response where are the fighters? Want to add the coastal types? You are so sure of the contents of a loss list you have not seen.You are missing the German fighters, there are quite a lot of them.
Which is, "LW fighters were trying to stop RAF fighters shooting down their bombers". Interesting definition of "included", then add the single aim of the Luftwaffe fighters, no mention of them shooting down RAF fighters.I include German fighters in the discussion, see above.
You read messages here and come up with this stuff? Go back and read the messages.You read Bungay and post this? Read it again the text not just the tables.
Bungay reports 5 to 4 Luftwaffe to RAF fighter loss ratio. Things like the Battle of Britain Then and Now loss lists result in a 1 to 3 RAF fighter to Luftwaffe bomber kill ratio. So how do the same RAF fighters get shot down by bombers and fighters?Are the fighters shot down by Bf 109s in addition to those shot down by the bombers (you said 1 to 3) or are they all the same?
So when is your Battle of France date exactly?The RAF started with circa 500 fighters (fall of France), this rose to around 700,
Great, which loss list are you drawing the conclusion from, what is the correct ratio, where does the 35% unharmed RAF pilots come from, how does the number of pilots being saved mean you can halve the number of aircraft lost? So far all you have provided is claims with no backing. I was able to ask a person who took part in a US Government funded study of the Battle of Britain, who confirmed the loss lists in the Battle of Britain Then and Now were the best ones published, being quite accurate. Those are the main lists I am using.Bombers did not shoot down the RAF fighters at a rate of 1 to 3
I leave that to you, given the effort you put in.please do not digress onto other hobby horses.
Bombers did not shoot down the RAF fighters at a rate of 1 to 3
BOMBERS DID NOT SHOOT DOWN RAF FIGHTERS AT A RATIO OF 1-3. I have had enough of this stupidity, you counted one of the bombers as the Ju-87 which got hammered in what was frequently called a Stuka party. The Me110 was a bomber in one squadron. In the last month of the BoB the "bombers" were mainly Bf109s. LF bomber losses were overwhelmingly caused by RAF fighters, and RAF fighter losses were overwhelmingly caused by LW fighters. I am done with this daft discussion, and all the other discussions which stem from your obsession with numbers over context.Great, which loss list are you drawing the conclusion from, what is the correct ratio,
Ju87 losses, all causes, daily, 11 to 18 August 1940, 11, 0, 2, 7, 1, 6, 9, 19. A further 18 all cause losses to end October. So frequently is how many parties? Given how quickly the Ju87 were withdrawn? The Luftwaffe lost 91 Ju87, versus 214 Do17, 292 He111 and 325 Ju88, all causes. So is the idea no Ju-87 ever shot down an RAF fighter?BOMBERS DID NOT SHOOT DOWN RAF FIGHTERS AT A RATIO OF 1-3. I have had enough of this stupidity, you counted one of the bombers as the Ju-87 which got hammered in what was frequently called a Stuka party.
The Me110 are counted as fighters, there was Erprobungs 210 which used Bf110 and Bf109 as fighter bombers. So how is this relevant? So because the Luftwaffe sent few bombers in October 1940 the loss ratio cannot be 1 to 3 July to September, how does that work? It is amazing you are sure the loss ratio was not 1 to 3, but are unable to actually tell anyone what it is beyond overwhelming.The Me110 was a bomber in one squadron. In the last month of the BoB the "bombers" were mainly Bf109s.
You continue to demonstrate mind reading skills below that of the average block of granite. Meantime define overwhelming, backed by loss lists.I am done with this daft discussion, and all the other discussions which stem from your obsession with numbers over context.
I think the loss of 11 and 19 in a single day would count as a "party". Wouldnt it? How many set off? The Ju87 was impossible to escort during its dive. It was difficult to escort across the widest stretches of the English Channel because it required at least two waves to take in and then take out. If the timing wasnt perfect, the Ju87s were caught without escort and almost defenceless, this was called a "Stuka party" and the exchange rate was not 1-3.Ju87 losses, all causes, daily, 11 to 18 August 1940, 11, 0, 2, 7, 1, 6, 9, 19. A further 18 all cause losses to end October. So frequently is how many parties? Given how quickly the Ju87 were withdrawn? The Luftwaffe lost 91 Ju87, versus 214 Do17, 292 He111 and 325 Ju88, all causes. So is the idea no Ju-87 ever shot down an RAF fighter?
It is relevant because they were bombers. The LW sent a lot of bombers in October, they were called Bf109s. You didnt include these as bombers lost, and the RAF fighter loses will count in your loss ratio of bombers shooting down fighters, or not as you didnt make it clear. You are talking about an exchange ratio which can be a valid expression but not with the BoB. Calling this exchange ratio "bombers shooting down fighters" is nonsense, utter nonsense so dont compare me to a block of granite.The Me110 are counted as fighters, there was Erprobungs 210 which used Bf110 and Bf109 as fighter bombers. So how is this relevant? So because the Luftwaffe sent few bombers in October 1940 the loss ratio cannot be 1 to 3 July to September, how does that work? It is amazing you are sure the loss ratio was not 1 to 3, but are unable to actually tell anyone what it is beyond overwhelming.
Overwhelming, forces the opposition to give up because they are overwhelmed.You continue to demonstrate mind reading skills below that of the average block of granite. Meantime define overwhelming, backed by loss lists.
List | Rank | First Name | Last Name | BoB Victories | Units |
1 | Oblt. | Helmut | Wick | 42 | I./JG 2 |
2 | Maj. | Adolf "Dolfo" | Galland | 35 | III./JG 26, Stab JG 26 |
3 | Hptm. | Walter | Oesau | 34 | III./JG 51 |
4 | Maj. | Werner "Vati" | Mölders | 28 | Stab JG 51 |
5 | Oblt. | Hermann-Friedrich | Joppien | 26 | I./JG 51 |
6 | Oblt. | Herbert | Ihlefeld | 24 | I./LG 2 |
7 | Hptm. | Gerhard | Schöpfel | 23 | III./JG 26 |
8-9 | Ofw. | Siegfried "Wurm" | Schnell | 18 | II./JG 2 |
8-9 | Hptm. | Horst "Jacob" | Tietzen | 18 | II./JG 51 |
10-11 | Oblt. | Hans "Assi" | Hahn | 17 | III./JG 2 |
10-11 | Lt. | Erich | Schmidt | 17 | III./JG 53 |
12-13 | Hptm. | Heinz | Bretnütz | 16 | II./JG 53 |
12-13 | Ofw. | Werner | Machold | 16 | I./JG 2 |
14-15 | Oblt. | Arnold | Lignitz | 15 | I./JG 51 |
14-15 | Oblt. | Hans | Philipp | 15 | II./JG 54 |
16-19 | Oblt. | Hans-Ekkehard | Bob | 14 | III./JG 54 |
16-19 | Maj. | Karl-Heinz | Leesemann | 14 | I./JG 52 |
16-19 | Oblt. | Joachim | Müncheberg | 14 | III./JG 26 |
16-19 | Oblt. | Josef "Pips" | Priller | 14 | II./JG 51 |
20-22 | Oblt. | Heinz | Ebeling | 13 | III./JG 26 |
20-22 | Maj. | Erich | Groth | 13 | II./ZG 76 |
20-22 | Hptm. | Hans-Karl | Mayer | 13 | I./JG 53 |
23-24 | Oblt. | Hans-Joachim | Jabs | 12 | II./ZG 76 |
23-24 | Hptm. | Hans | Wiggers | 12 | I./JG 51 |
25-27 | Oblt. | Helmut | Bennemann | 11 | I./JG 52 |
25-27 | Oblt. | Erich | Hohagen | 11 | II./JG 51 |
25-27 | Oblt. | Gustav | Sprick | 11 | III./JG 26 |
28-40 | Fw. | Heinz | Bär | 10 | I./JG 51 |
28-40 | Oblt. | Kurt | Brändle | 10 | II./JG 53 |
28-40 | Oblt. | Josef "Joschko" | Fözö | 10 | II./JG 51 |
28-40 | Hptm. | Dietrich | Hrabak | 10 | II./JG 54 |
28-40 | Lt. | Rolf | Kaldrack | 10 | III./ZG 76 |
28-40 | Oblt. | Karl-Heinz | Krahl | 10 | I./JG 2 |
28-40 | Lt. | Erich | Leie | 10 | Stab JG 2 |
28-40 | Oblt. | Gustav | Rödel | 10 | II./JG 27 |
28-40 | Ofw. | Erich | Rudorffer | 10 | I./JG 2 |
28-40 | Fw. | Walter | Scherer | 10 | III./ZG 26 |
28-40 | Lt. | Heinz | Tornow | 10 | II./JG 51 |
28-40 | Lt. | Eduard | Tratt | 10 | I./Erp.Gr. 210 |
28-40 | Hptm. | Wolf-Dietrich | Wilcke | 10 | III./JG 53 |
Don't go there, I had two American colleagues who both said the same thing "I dont understand your ffffing English". Talk about leading with your chin? How is that my problem? Since I am fffing English! One accused me of making up the word "datum" as in datum point, the point from where you measure. He worked for another company in the group called AMDATA, when I told him Datum is singular and Data is plural his head almost exploded as he ran to the office to get a dictionary.I do so enjoy being taught English by the English!
He was a clever guy, a specialist in computers and ultrasonics, the gear he was using had been developed to check the Shuttle boosters after the Challenger disaster. But the trouble was that computers and ultrasonics was all he knew, he didnt know where he was in Dhahran because he didnt know where Saudi Arabia is. He thought Iraq and Iran were two parts of the same country (we were together when the Iraqi passenger plane was shot down). One night there was the end of an old movie, obviously with British actors but not in Britain there was sun palm trees and sand. The credits rolled up and it said "filmed on location in New Zealand" so he asked the obvious question "Where the F@ck is New Zealand"? "Next to Australia " I replied "and dont you dare ask where Australia is, get a map out"That's embarrassing.
It also sucked that my Dad, Uncles and Stepdad were all former military, because there was ALWAYS something for me to be doing!
Oh...this was a word never uttered.I learnt early on to never complain to Dad about being bored.
Oh...this was a word never uttered.
I'd do my chores and then make myself scarce. If I wanted to be bored, I had to go somewhere else and do it.
Ahh yeah, one also never stood around with their hands in their pockets, either!
Years ago, I was with my Uncle Bruce (USAF) at Norton AFB while he had to run an errand."Dad, I'm bored."
"Here you go, Slim, this pair of boots needs shinin'."
"Dad, I'm bored."
"The grout in the bathroom looks ready for a toothbursh."
Yeah, that was an easy no-go after the first three times.