Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It was .7 ( slightly less than 1 out of 100)not .007 but still that seems quite low.Only if you believe that 105 P-47 were lost in action during WW II.
15,000 X .007 = 105.
US must have lost a bunch due to crashes/mechanical malfunctions and covered it up by claiming combat losses?
Or it's a misprint/typo.
Or it is the loss rate per sortie, 7 P-47s lost for every 1000 P-47s dispatched against the enemy.
Context is important.
0.01 is one hundredth 0.007 is slightly less than that.It was .7 ( slightly less than 1 out of 100)not .007 but still that seems quite low.
It was .7 ( slightly less than 1 out of 100)not .007 but still that seems quite low.
Ya, 10-4 but that's how it was written in the article and I'm sure they meant slightly less than 1 out of 100. Would be ridiculously low otherwise.0.7% is 0.007 when doing the actual math. Like 10% is 0.10
Or it is the loss rate per sortie, 7 P-47s lost for every 1000 P-47s dispatched against the enemy.
Discussion of massed bomber raid losses is frequently in percentage of the planes used in the raid. I think Bomber Command considered 4% to be the most they could cope with long term. In this respect the more aircraft involved in a raid reduced the loss rate, because the anti aircraft fire and fighter defences had more targets than they could cope with as long as the bomber stream was short.Loss rates are generally not percents; loss rates are generally along the lines of "losses per 100,000 flying hours," at least the ones I have seen. I never ran across loss rates per X sorties ... it was always losses per X flying hours.
.
I was just reading that only .7% of p47s were lost in action. This seems very low especially considering the mission profile Jugs were so often given but its a stat I have never read before on any aircraft and this is the first time for the Thunderbolt.
Does anyone know this stat for other types and how important is this statistic in your opinion.
That illustrates things perfectly over the whole war for example the Lancasters losses were 2.2%. However there were many missions that were against very little opposition late in the war and prior to D-Day in France. At any time, if the RAF was suffering above 4% consistently on massed raids they would have to slow down, give up or re think. It was pretty much the same in the USAAF until the B-29 was introduced, with the cost of the plane and the training of crews required what was acceptable as a loss rate had to be revised.Hi
'The Bomber Command War Diaries' gives the statistics for Bomber Command type losses, these are:
Lancaster - 156,192 sorties, 3,431 aircraft lost (2.20% of sorties), 246 lost in operational crashes (0.16% of sorties).
Halifax - 82,773, 1,884 (2.28%), 199 (0.24%).
Wellington - 47,409, 1,386 (2.92%), 341 (0.72).
Mosquito - 39,795, 260 (0.65%), 50 (0.13%).
Stirling - 18,440, 625 (3.39%), 59 (0.32%).
Hampden - 16,541, 424 (2.56%), 209 (1.26%).
Blenheim - 12,214, 442 (3.62%), 99 (0.81%).
Whitley - 9,858, 317 (3.22%), 141 (1.43).
Boston - 1,609, 42 (2.61%), 4 (0.25%).
Fortress - 1,340, 14 (1.04%), 4 (0.30%).
Manchester - 1,269, 64 (5.04%), 12 (0.95%).
Ventura - 997, 39 (3.91%), 2 (0.28%).
Liberator - 662, 3 (0.45), nil.
I hope that is of use.
Mike
It was out of all Thunderbolts made. Guess I should have been more clearLoss rates are generally not percents; loss rates are generally along the lines of "losses per 100,000 flying hours," at least the ones I have seen. I never ran across loss rates per X sorties ... it was always losses per X flying hours.
I have seen losses due to enemy aircraft (air-to-air losses), losses due to AAA (flak), operational losses (running out of fuel, losses while repositioning, pilot error, etc.), and ... at least for the Navy, losses with the ship, as when a carrier sinks with aircraft aboard. To get a real percent, we'd have to know total sorties by type and total losses by type of sortie. Mostly, I see "Effective" and "Noneffective" sorties; effective being whenever a sortie contacts the enemy and noneffective being when a sortie is flown without enemy contact. I have also run across "noncombat losses," that were not exactly defined.
So, the value of .7 is not very useful unless we know exactly what losses the .7 refers to.
Does anyone know this stat for other types and how important is this statistic in your opinion.
Personally I think loss rates have some importance when discussing the effectiveness of a combat aircraft, but they can only be adequately compared when the overall mission and combat environment is similar between the aircraft in question.
Like TBM losses in the Atlantic versus TBM losses in the Pacific?
I was just reading that only .7% of p47s were lost in action.
Unfortunately, we do not have this data for the Pacific theaters.