Kill Ratios

[Erich]

I can attest frm factual reference you do not have all the German kills down to an ace with 5. Have said this repeatedly on this board as well at least on another 6: the Luftwaffe quit the processing and officially awarding claims in the fall of 44, so you will not find an 'official' source for these claims othere than the pilots flugbuch or the unit KTB, and I can also tell you that not all the GErman single engine fighter units are correct. There is also no listing of twin engine fighter units kills. JG 7 Me 262 units kills are also not all confirmed

E

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by GregP

Yes, well you have to take into account the rules of "kills". If we get shot, but don't go down immediately, then we consider the aircraft that went down later to be an "operational loss." The Russians consider it a kill.

To the F-15.

The Israleis have lost at LEAST one F-15 taht managed to land safely after being shot at, but never flew again. I'd call that a kill.

In any case, the ratio is might impressive in favor of the F-15 Eagle.

Hope the Raptor does as well.

I gave this some tought and recently discussed this with an instructor at the US Air Force Academy (I work there). He's some thought.....

If the "asset" (Plane, pilot or both) is totally destroyed, consider it a kill. If the asset returns and is able to fly again, no kill. If the "aircraft asset" is makes it back to it's base lands normally but never flies again, no kill. The thinking there that both assets returned and even if the aircraft don't ever fly again, components of it will be salvaged and used on another "asset." Make sence?!?!

[schwarzpanzer]

Sounds good!

However:

If the "asset" (Plane, pilot or both) is totally destroyed, consider it a kill

I suppose if another plane/pilot is available, then that's what really matters?

My reason being is if you can afford the losses, then it isn't really a loss.

ie. a German pilot dead in '39 is less significant than one in '44.

Likewise if a replacement plane is/isn't available (with fuel/ammo)

- That sounds a bit Stalinist doesn't it?

[P38 Pilot]

Hope the Raptor does as well.

Oh trust me; it will!

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by schwarzpanzer

Sounds good!

However:

If the "asset" (Plane, pilot or both) is totally destroyed, consider it a kill

I suppose if another plane/pilot is available, then that's what really matters?

My reason being is if you can afford the losses, then it isn't really a loss.

ie. a German pilot dead in '39 is less significant than one in '44.

Likewise if a replacement plane is/isn't available (with fuel/ammo)

- That sounds a bit Stalinist doesn't it?

To me if the plane makes it back and it could no longer fly but you can cannabilize parts from it, it's not a kill. If it makes it back and is completely destroyed, it's a kill.

[Chocks away!]

Finnish Bf 109 Gs had a kill/loss ratio of 12 to 1 over the Soviets

[the lancaster kicks ass]

To me if the plane makes it back and it could no longer fly but you can cannabilize parts from it, it's not a kill. If it makes it back and is completely destroyed, it's a kill

to me a kill is when the plane's crashed/destroyed in flight, if the pilot can land it but the plane's unable to fly again, it's written off, not killed...........

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

to me a kill is when the plane's crashed/destroyed in flight, if the pilot can land it but the plane's unable to fly again, it's written off, not killed...........

Lanc your right, I think for these reasons:

1, When a plane comes back with the pilot/crew alive they certainly not killed.
2, Virtualy all airplanes brought back contribute something and add a good plane/s to the fight.
3, The persons defining their kill ratio only count those aircraft that crashed without returning (both sides) this keeps it consistant.
4, The aircraft is an asset the one you see going down is positively a lost asset.

The thing about Kill ratios is that as a statisic and can be muddeled easily. Kill ratios must be checked and understood before they mean anything!

wmaxt

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Lanc your right, I think for these reasons:

1, When a plane comes back with the pilot/crew alive they certainly not killed.
2, Virtualy all airplanes brought back contribute something and add a good plane/s to the fight.
3, The persons defining their kill ratio only count those aircraft that crashed without returning (both sides) this keeps it consistant.
4, The aircraft is an asset the one you see going down is positively a lost asset.

The thing about Kill ratios is that as a statisic and can be muddeled easily. Kill ratios must be checked and understood before they mean anything!

wmaxt

Yup - and with the exception of the aircraft being entirely written off upon landing, be rest assured the maintenance folks will tear into it for spare parts.....

[ricardo]

Originally Posted by GregP

I have a VERY good file of all air-to-air kills, but not a good file on air-to-air losses. My kills file does NOT state what aircraft was lost or what aircraft was used by the vivtor, only the name, nationality, # kills, and date.

Whish these data were a bit easier to come by!

Although there is tremendous interest, it seems the governments choose to keep data about vistories and losses as secret as possible.

Frustrating.

Hi everybody!!

First of all, I'd wish to thank to all of you for your contribution in this matter.

Greg: Very good!! I'd wish to see the list of kills that you found.

My main interest is to see what happened down in North African / Mediterranean campaign (details of air war, of course).

Thanks in advance.

Ricardo.

[P1234567890]

I have one comment and one question.

Comment: Everyone here has gotten so caught up in whether or not a plane that makes it back but can't fly again has lost sight of the original post; the bottom line is that the F-15 is/was one hell of a fighter! Does it really matter if its ratio is 110:0 or if it's 110:1?

Question: How are planes destroyed on the ground typically counted? If you strafe a runway and take out 10 parked planes all lined up in a row, does that count as 10 kills?

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by P1234567890

1. Does it really matter if its ratio is 110:0 or if it's 110:1?

2. How are planes destroyed on the ground typically counted? If you strafe a runway and take out 10 parked planes all lined up in a row, does that count as 10 kills?

1. I agree, sometimes people get too wrapped up in the math of ratio's, with high ratio's it makes a big difference if you discover a few more losses on the favored side; if you think of it like a score in a game, getting beat 28 to 4 or 28 to 7 isn't that much different.
2. The US 8th AF I believe eventually gave 'full' credit for ground victories on the reasonable premise that destroying a/c on well defended (by AA) German airfields required no less skill or courage than downing them in the air. However today almost everybody still distinguishes those victories from aerial ones and implicitly discounts them, I think it's fair to say. Most other US numbered air forces and other air arms didn't count those even nominally as the same as aerial.

We know that WWII aerial victory credits didn't usually exactly correspond to actual a/c losses by the enemy, and the degree of discrepancy was highly variable. That was even more true of ground claims. As one example Japanese Navy AF claims of great destruction of US a/c on the ground in the initial strikes against the Philippines, in December 1941, were pretty accurate. Claims in the following days and weeks by Japanese Army AF of dozens more US a/c destroyed on the ground were almost all overclaims. They were mistakenly counting bombing and shooting up the same wrecks again and again, some of the a/c deliberately propped back up by US ground crews to look like they needed more going over, to draw more fire away from the surviving a/c now camoflaged and/or dispersed to lesser known airfields, plus newly made wooden decoys were used too eventually: too bad they didn't have the foresight to prepare such measures *before* December 8 '41.

Ground claims could be accurate or astronomically overstated. Even more so than for aerial claims you need the other side's account or you can't say with any certainty what really happened.

Joe

[Flyboy2]

Espcially in World War II kill claims where heavily exagerated. Alot of times, pilots claimed to have killed the same aircraft and both got credit for the kill. I remember hearing that this was especially true in the Pacific, but I can't find the source. For instance, I have heard multiple figures for kill-to-loss ratios of F-86's in Korea: from 7-1 to 11-1. I know that that is in Korea, but I would think the same general concept applies to World War II.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Substitute Luftwaffe with 8thAF and British with German, and you have a repeat of the US bombers over Germany in early 1944.

That might not be a 'pure' analogy.

Jan 11, 1944 is when Doolittle did his 'pursue the LW in air and on the ground'.

Several of his bomber commanders thought he issued a 'death order'.

Until the battles in first 4 months of 1944, it was not so much fighter to fighter 'around the bombers' as it was 'wait until the fighters run out of range'. The bomber commanders did not want fighter cover out of sight 'hunting' and the 8th AF only had 6 P-47 groups active by October 1943.. not near enough to cover the bombers and could only go a little bit into Germany.

The Mustangs and P-38s changed the game by taking bombers all the way to the target, and made it work.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by JoeB

1. I agree, sometimes people get too wrapped up in the math of ratio's, with high ratio's it makes a big difference if you discover a few more losses on the favored side; if you think of it like a score in a game, getting beat 28 to 4 or 28 to 7 isn't that much different.
2. The US 8th AF I believe eventually gave 'full' credit for ground victories on the reasonable premise that destroying a/c on well defended (by AA) German airfields required no less skill or courage than downing them in the air. However today almost everybody still distinguishes those victories from aerial ones and implicitly discounts them, I think it's fair to say. Most other US numbered air forces and other air arms didn't count those even nominally as the same as aerial.

Historically, the reason for awarding the ground score in the 8th AF the same as an air award was a 'cynical' incentive to get the fighters to chase the Luftwaffe 'in the air and on the ground'.. the USAF reversed that decision and since the 1950's a ground score is noted but as you know does not count toward ace status.

We know that WWII aerial victory credits didn't usually exactly correspond to actual a/c losses by the enemy, and the degree of discrepancy was highly variable. That was even more true of ground claims. As one example Japanese Navy AF claims of great destruction of US a/c on the ground in the initial strikes against the Philippines, in December 1941, were pretty accurate. Claims in the following days and weeks by Japanese Army AF of dozens more US a/c destroyed on the ground were almost all overclaims. They were mistakenly counting bombing and shooting up the same wrecks again and again, some of the a/c deliberately propped back up by US ground crews to look like they needed more going over, to draw more fire away from the surviving a/c now camoflaged and/or dispersed to lesser known airfields, plus newly made wooden decoys were used too eventually: too bad they didn't have the foresight to prepare such measures *before* December 8 '41.

Ground claims could be accurate or astronomically overstated. Even more so than for aerial claims you need the other side's account or you can't say with any certainty what really happened.

Joe

The 8th AF lost a lot more pilots strafing than air to air combat and this 'incentive' was a huge reason for the losses.

The overclaim issues were always a factor in trying to asses the huge scores in April 1945 in Germany and Czechoslovakia and Denmark. There were more severe 'rules' for the 8th AF awards usually based on a.) visible fire or explosion, b.) gun camera evidence via orbiting the airfield and counting fires.

At the end of the day those claims in context of German aircraft never returning to service were probably accurate, simply because the LW didn't have enough resources (or pilots and fuel) to bother repairing a damaged ship.

The Germans were very good a putting dummies on the field and the a/c in the trees but the dummies didn't have fuel on board.

Joe - On the other side of the ledger a lot of aircraft that did not have fuel had quite a bit of damage from the .50 cal fire, and even if not destroyed (or recorded as such) were so badly damaged as to be written off or out of service for longer than it would take a new one to be built.