See post above...
[sarcasm]Again using your logic the Bf 109 is the bestest aircraft ever as it shot down everything, and the mostest.[/sarcasm]
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Ask yourself honestly, if the Typhoon had scored more victory claims than the P-40F in the same time period, would that have been noted in this thread? Perhaps heavily emphasized?
No that is exactly what you are doing.
What were the mission perameters? What were the squadron orders? What were the enemy aircraft's orders. How many aircraft were contacted. What type of aircraft were contacted, and what was it's mission perameter during contact? Was the aircraft ordered to carry out ground attack, while another fighter type was ordered for air superiority top cover?
Loss statistics mean nothing except that a particular aircraft was killed on a particular date.
You are being overly simple and black and white in your very agenda biased research, which is onviously only telling you what you want to hear to begin with.
Some victories are much more significant than others, once one spitfire shot at and damaged one Ju 86 at 41,000ft over south England no more high altitude raids were tried. Fw190 Jabo raids were a problem affecting industry and life all over the south of England, however it doesn't take the loss of many pilots and planes to make the dropping of a small bomb not worth the losses on what were nuisance raids. A P-38 shooting down a Mitsubishi GM4 isn't a fantastic achievement, when it has Admiral Yamamoto on board it is viewed differently.
In my humble opinion its the comparative ratio of air to air victories to losses that is pertinent not the raw numbers.I think it was already clear, but you keep posting reports of victories of P-40Fs in air-to-air and don't ever consider the disadvantage that the Typhoon had in that role - ie, it wasn't used for that long in that role, in small numbers and with little enemy contact.
I think it was established that there were about 30 squadrons that operated the Typhoon. IIRC there were 12 aircraft in a squadron, which would make it 360 in service. Assuming they were serviceable.
Even if it was 20 to a squadron, that is still only 600. Compared to 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls made (obviously not all were operational).
The majority of Typhoon squadrons operated in roles other than air superiority. In fact, it appears only two squadrons operated as pure fighter squadrons, and only for 9 months.
There is much more to the story of aerial victory counts than how good the aircraft was. If you seldom met the enemy in combat, you aren't going to run up huge victory numbers.
- You seem to be suggesting that Operational History is inadmissible or irrelevant when comparing two types of WW2 fighter planes. Obviously there are limits to it's relevance but I think you are overstating your case. There are dozens if not hundreds of threads on this forum where Operational History IS used as at least one criteria for comparing two fighters. It's part of the story isn't it?
This happens in Academia all the time. What I have seen so far are a host of reasons why people believe the Typhoon is better. and the specs make it look better, but the actual Operational data shows something different. Not just data I posted either.
I think there is a Catch 22 at work here. If you post something that offends the status quo and get pat responses that ignore reality, and then let it lie, you look like you just posted nonsense.
Please look at the chart in post #581.
Same Group (No 83) operating as part of the 2nd tactical air force operating in the same area, at the same time. 10 squadrons of Typhoons in over 11,000 sorties claim one German aircraft damaged. Either the Typhoon is the worst fighter of all time or the Spitfires and Mustangs were so good that the Typhoons never saw German fighters?
Or compare the Mustang IIIs to the Mustang Is. The Allison powered MK Is have an astronomical lower loss rate than the Merlin powered ones, but then they weren't flying the same missions even if flying in the same area at the same time.
The basic methodology of comparing planes shot down by similar numbers of planes deployed while interesting, is obviously flawed.
We need a lot deeper "Operational data" to draw any remotely valid conclusions. Even such simple stuff as the distances operating form base can affect the number losses vs the number of damaged planes that made it home. Just saying that both types operated over water (at times) doesn't quite cut it.
Obviously you get a much clearer picture of the merits of each fighter the more precise your operational history is. But to start with you have to have the basic data which is what I've been trying to provide on the P-40 side.
Also I don't I think it's maybe clear that I have not made any definitive statements. I just pointed out some of the trends you can already see in the data. I agree it does not conclusively prove anything.
As for what Shortround was saying you can also see that in the P-40 history summaries, for example the 27th fighter bomber group has no claims because it was operating when there were fewer Axis aircraft around anymore, the pilots probably weren't trained as fighter pilots, and it was flying almost exclusively bomber missions.
Similarly the 324th has a much worse record than the 325th (less than half as many clains) essentially just because of the missions it was flying were more bomber oriented and maybe something to do with the leadership. But I think they both got the same kind of training and had the same planes.
However I don't think the statistics Shortround posted prove anything definitively either. It just shows you part of the story from a late period for I think one Wing right?
In other words I get it there were periods where Fighters didn't have planes to shoot down. I have expressed doubts that the target environment was that barren for the entire Operationsl History of the Typhoon and all 30 squadrons or however many were actually operational. But that is just a guess.
At this point I have access to data (and I think one or two other people here do as well) that can tell us a lot of detail about the operational history of at least 2 P-40F Fighter Groups, 79th and 325th. I have a book somewhere on the 57th Fighter Group as well I think, plus MAW III and IV
We could compare those with the operational history of the Typhoon for a few months, which I remember somebody here mentioned that they have.
Then it's just a matter of how fine of a point you want to put on it. You can still always point out reasons why you can't compare them but pilots, generals, enemies did compare on the basis of operations.
I also think that we as a group here would be putting more emphasis on the victory claims if the ratio was reverse of what it was.
In other words I get it there were periods where Fighters didn't have planes to shoot down. I have expressed doubts that the target environment was that barren for the entire Operationsl History of the Typhoon and all 30 squadrons or however many were actually operational. But that is just a guess.
CarnageConversely, if the P-40F had taken over the Typhoon's role in Northern Europe, what would have been the result?
Theoretically substitute the Typhoon in place of the P-40F.
Do the victory claims and successes in the Med go up or down? The Typhoon has the performance and load carrying advantage over the P-40F, so when put in the same circumstances, should it not perform better? I assume it would have
Conversely, if the P-40F had taken over the Typhoon's role in Northern Europe, what would have been the result?
Carnage
Once again pricelessIndeed, to the Germans. If JG 27 couldn't handle them how could those back bencher Western front guys have held up?
Once again priceless