Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You are correct and I have appoligised for this remark. I will try to refrain from similar remarks in the future.
British and Dutch Buffalo's in 1942 shot down around 10-11 Japanese fighters for 53 Buffalo's lost in combats where both sides' losses are known, and around 9-10 other a/c without further loss.
Thank you!!How good or bad the 108 is as a dogfighter cannon is a much speculated subject, i agree.
However I do remember one of Reschke's kills in the Ta-152:
He was curving down low and his MG's failed. So he switched to the cannon and shot the plane (iirc it was a Typhoon or Tempest). I am however not aware of any reports about general effectiveness. The only thing I know is that it was considered very accurate, second only to the MG FF, although that accuracy generally doesn't have to mean all that much.
Not true, once operational, it shot down about 13 heavy bombers and lost fewer of its own. Some were non-combat and very few pilots were killed.The more I think about it, the more I'm voting for the Me 163. Extremely short flight duration and killed more pilots then it shot down (6 or 9 IIRC).
Buffnut:
That would be the purpose of an interceptor, a fighter actually has a much broader defintion.
Sorry. Disagree again. An interceptor is a point-defence asset designed to get as high as possible as fast as possible, engage the enemy and then land. All interceptors are fighters but not all fighters are interceptors, but the task remains the same - engage the enemy.
A fighters job can be to protect assets. ( Other planes, (bombers), factories, radar installations, ships, territory, etc.) It might shoot down enemy planes doing that job, or it might not. Better if they do, but not an absolute requirement.
Protection of static point targets is the task of an integrated air defence network of which fighters are but one component. The fighters are there to shoot the enemy down before it gets in range of the target. You can't protect any target without engaging the enemy and causing him to suffer casualties.
A good example would be the close escort doctrine used by Yak fighters protecting bombers. Their job was to drive off German fighters, they were specifically forbidden from leaving their charges to pursue and shoot down enemy fighters.
Escort is merely a means of creating local air superiority around the bomber formation - leaving the bombers to chase enemy aircraft would leave the bomber formation exposed. However, you can't protect bombers without attacking enemy fighters that are seeking to shoot down your bombers. German fighters continued to intercept USAAF bomber formations even after long-range fighter escort via P-51s was implemented but German casualties started to mount because of the escorting P-51s shooting down the German fighters.
I believe the Boomerangs, though they were not able to shoot down any Japanese bombers, did disrupt their bombing mission. That would be a successful sortie for the Boomerang IMO.
That's tough to prove. There remain myths of RAF Fighter Command breaking up German bomber formations but this is counter-intuitive (bombers close up when attacked - they don't disperse) and has been disproved by research into German archives.
The Boomerang continued in a combat role throughout it's career, while the Defiant was relegated to a training role after a poor showing in combat.
Looking at it that way would make the Defiant a less successful fighter than the Boomerang, even though it did manage to shoot down several enemy a/c.
Again, you're talking about relative success but this is about least successful. Local conditions are key drivers in what aircraft are operated by any Air Arm (just look at the North Koreans employing Po-2s for bombing missions during the Korean War, or the RAF using Wirraways as stop-gap dive-bombers in Malaya.
I don't think many would agree that length of service is irrelevant to the success of a design. People praise the Mustang, Spitfire and Me109 for their length of service all the time. I would say that longevity helps put those three planes amongst the most successful fighter designs of WWII, so the opposite would also be true.
My comment about stop-gaps refers. However, irrespective of how it's slanted, a fighter is a fighter and has to be evaluated as such, and one that didn't shoot down the enemy did not succeed in the role.
There are a lot of people who place emphasis on kill/loss ratios. A positive or negatvie kill ratio doesn't tell the whole story, but it is a pretty important bit of evidence when evaluating a fighter. Definately not meaningless.
It's important within the context of the campaign but it is impossible to use it as a comparative measure because local conditions were so varied (even between relatively local battles like May 1940 and Sep 1940)
The numbers I gave are for all Buffalo operations of RAF and KNIL in all the early campaigns. The source is Bloody Shambles by Shores. The losses are only those in air combat, counting up specific combats, and only including combats where the opposing losses are also given. I think we've been through this before but your point on possibly incomplete Japanese accounts is not entirely relevant because I only include combats where that book gives their specific loss in that combat (their source is mainly the Japanese official history series Senshi Sosho, where I've checked they Shores and co-authors relate it contents accurately). Also the Buffalo result in all campaigns v the Zero was pretty much in line with its results v the Army fighters and those Navy records are not only very complete but are available online. Again Senshi Sosho and Shores relate them correctly where I've checked.Joe,
The RAF Buffalos' performance was, I think, slightly better than you state:
Shot down by enemy fighters: 21
Shot down by other enemy action: 9
Destroyed on the ground: 30+ (only lists known airframes destroyed – actual figure likely to be higher)
Destroyed in Accidents: 49 (20 pre-war, 29 from 8 Dec onwards)
There are huge gaps in IJAAF losses for the Malayan campaign, notably 59th Sentai and all the Ki-27 units.
Overall, the Buffalo was on a par, performance-wise, with both the P-36 and Hurricane.
Thank you!!
Not true, once operational, it shot down about 13 heavy bombers and lost fewer of its own. Some were non-combat and very few pilots were killed.
You may have a point that the Komet wasn't that succesful but the reason you cite is not accurate.
Kris
As I understand itCombat Aircraft of WW2 by Bookthrift, pg 73
"Numerous improved versions were flying on VE Day, but only 370 Komets had been in service and these had suffered high attrition through accidents."
IMHO operating losses from combat or non-combat really does not matter.
It would certainly matter in the Aleutians, where the weather conditions could be a more dangerous enemy than the Japanese. You would need to bifurcate your combat losses from your non-combat losses to properly address just what it is that's killing you, the enemy (our aircraft aren't good enough)* or simply the conditions (acts of God). This would go a long way to facilitating the correct intelligence assessment.
*pertinent to the thread
Sorry to come back to this, I know you already distanced yourself from it.Combat Aircraft of WW2 by Bookthrift, pg 73
"Numorous improved versions were flying on VE day, but only 370 Komets had been in service and these had suffered high attrition through accidents."
IMHO operating losses from combat or noncombat really does not mater.
However I do remember one of Reschke's kills in the Ta-152:
He was curving down low and his MG's failed. So he switched to the cannon and shot the plane (iirc it was a Typhoon or Tempest). I am however not aware of any reports about general effectiveness. The only thing I know is that it was considered very accurate, second only to the MG FF, although that accuracy generally doesn't have to mean all that much.
The Tempest which I attacked quickly reached the same height as me and was [at] approximately 10 o'clock before me. The dogfight began between 50 and 100 metres above ground level and very often the wing tips passed close over the treetops.[...] The whole fight was executed in a left-hand turn, the low altitude of which would not allow for any mistakes. Ever so gradually I gained metre by metre on the Tempest and after a few circles I had reached the most favourable shooting position. [...] I pressed my machine-gun buttons for the first time [...] I could see the Tempest for a short moment in straight ahead flight displaying slightly erratic flying behaviour. But immediately she went straight back into the left turn. [...] I sighted the Tempest very favourably in my cross-hairs and could not have missed but my machine-guns experienced feeding problems. I therefore tried to shoot it down with my cannon and forced her into a tight left-hand turn from where she tipped out over her right wing and crashed into a forest.
Newer aircraft with engines of better power to weight ratios may allow the carriage of heavier armanent.
Comparisons between guns of differrent gun power to weight ratios may change results.
Trading fuel and endurance for gun/armament weight may allow for the carriage of heavier armament.
trading ammuntion capacity for more gun weight allows for a heavier throw weight although for a shorter time period.
There are probably others.
And as someone else alluded to, French H-75's apparently didn't do worse against Bf109E's, at least compared to other French types or Hurricanes (though I don't have hard stats to calculate a kill ratio), even did well according to their own claims.
Joe
The French didn't do bad initially though for fairness sake it needs to be mentioned that they were also fighting Bf-109D's.
Germany - 48 lost
Allies - 59 lost (60 if counting one Spit P.R.)
Breakdown
Bf-109: 40 lost
(23 to H-75A; 13 to MS-406; 4 to Hurricane)
Bf-110 - 8 lost
(5 to Hurr; 2 to H-75A; 1 to MS-406)
*****
H-75A - 17 lost
(15 to Bf-109; 2 to Bf-110)
MS-406 - 31 lost
(30 to Bf-109; 1 to Bf-110)
Hurricane - 11 lost
(11 to Bf-109)
Spitfire P.R. 1 lost (Bf-109)
Source: "Fledgling Eagles" Christopher Shores.
From "La Regia Aeronautica 1939-1940" east africa until 10 january 1941 losses 29 fighters were shoot down (also from AA) and an other 11 losses for incidents or ground attack. you give a 35 fighter losses only for air combat can you explain the difference?
If i've understand this are the loss before of may attack? or other?
The figures i gave are from the beginning of the campaign in June 1940 - Nov 41.