Worst aircraft of WW2? (Continued)

[B-17engineer]

Great info !

[slaterat]

Joe B wrote

OTOH other Allied types with generally better reputations fared as poorly in that theater and period. For example the Hurricane with same air arms, same general period, actually had a worse record, particularly against the two modern Japanese types, Zero and Type 1. Whereas strangely, the Buffalo did worst against the obsolescent Type 97, where the Hurricane's record was almost 1:1.

I'm not so sure of that. A fair comparison would be between Buffaloes and Hurricanes defending Singapore.

From Bloody Shambles p384

When losses could be tallied and claims assessed it was decided that since the outbreak of the (Pacific) war, 122 Buffaloes and 45 Hurricanes had been lost to date, including those destroyed in accidents or by bombing or shelling on the ground. Reportedly Hurricanes had been credited with about 100 victories over the island and the Buffaloes about 30.

AAA also made the rather dubious claim of 100 kills over Singapore, which should almost be entirely ignored. Actual Japanese losses were at least 102 aircraft.
From these numbers one can see that Buffaloes suffered three times the losses for about 1/3 the kills of the Hurricane. The exchange rate against the Japanese for the Buffalo is about 5 losses for 1 kill, For the Hurricane it's a positive ratio of about 1 loss for 2 kills. This makes the Hurricane a rather staggering 10 times more effective than the Buffalo during the defence of Singapore.

Slaterat

[kool kitty89]

But did the Buffalos suffer proportionally higher non-combat losses than the Hurricanes?

[Vincenzo]

and JoeB was talking real kills and not claims

[BIG BIRD]

I don't know were kool kitty89 got his info but he said that the buffolos kills were verified by the opposition. Untille some one can pull out some hardcore evidince I personily agree kool kitty89. Becouse of armore protection in world war 1 it would only take a couple of bulletes to make a plane unfliyble so thought of going throught most of world war 1 ,not to mention a couple foucker scourges, without taking some hits, that dosent sound right.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by slaterat

Joe B wrote
I'm not so sure of that. A fair comparison would be between Buffaloes and Hurricanes defending Singapore.

From Bloody Shambles p384


AAA also made the rather dubious claim of 100 kills over Singapore, which should almost be entirely ignored. Actual Japanese losses were at least 102 aircraft.
From these numbers one can see that Buffaloes suffered three times the losses for about 1/3 the kills of the Hurricane. The exchange rate against the Japanese for the Buffalo is about 5 losses for 1 kill, For the Hurricane it's a positive ratio of about 1 loss for 2 kills. This makes the Hurricane a rather staggering 10 times more effective than the Buffalo during the defence of Singapore.

Slaterat

That's a misreading of that source I'm afraid. My numbers are the cumulated results of actual outcomes given in that book combat by combat. Yes the book also summarizes the losses *to all causes* of each type Hurricane and Buffalo, Japanese losses *to all causes* and *claims* of the Hurricanes and Buffalo's, but you're basically saying the vague and general info given on that page contradicts the actual results combat by combat given in the same book! That doesn't work

Nor is there any reason to just consider Singapore, again the book (the 2 vols) given the same detailed results for all the campaigns in that period, and the bigger the sample, the less subject to statistical noise. And I'm counting just fighter-fighter results becuase that's the most direct comparison of which fighter was more effective, kills of non-fighters often followed from success in dominating the enemy fighters. The Japanese fighters downed far more Allied non-fighters than the Allied ones did Japanese non-fighters, in this period.

If you want to go over the combats date by date, page by page in the book lets do so. My figures are subject to errors in my addition or reading, and errors in "Bloody Shambles": I've found a few of both in the past. Still, I have reasonable confidence in both. The Hurricane's fighter-fighter performance, counting bottom up for each combat but only including combats where both sides' losses are known (that's most though). It includes Malaya, DEI, Burma and Ceylon, including a few Dutch Hurricane kill/losses, *Per "Bloody Shambles"*, to compare to the Buffalo results in post #1130:
Hurricane v Type Zero Fighter: 35 Hurricanes lost for 6 Zeroes, 5 combats
Hurricane v Type 1 Fighter ('Oscar'): 20 Hurricanes for 4 Type 1's, 8 combats
Hurricane v Type 97 Fighter ('Nate'): 8 Hurricanes for 5-1/11 Type 97's, 8 combats
Overall 1:4.17 against the Hurricane in fighter-fighter combat, only slightly better than the Buffalo, and worse v the modern Japanese fighters. Even excluding the 'unfair' 3:27 result v Zeroes in 2 combats over Ceylon in April, the Hurricane went 1:4 v the modern types in 11 combats, the Buffalo went 1:3.3 in 13 combats.

Joe

[Old Wizard]

It's likely they were using standard 1930s RAF fighter tactics which would partly explain their rather poor showing.

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by BIG BIRD

I don't know were kool kitty89 got his info but he said that the buffolos kills were verified by the opposition. Untille some one can pull out some hardcore evidince I personily agree kool kitty89. Becouse of armore protection in world war 1 it would only take a couple of bulletes to make a plane unfliyble so thought of going throught most of world war 1 ,not to mention a couple foucker scourges, without taking some hits, that dosent sound right.

Sorry, the original info was from wikipedia, and there doens't seem to have been a sourse specified. I've been looking around online but haven't found anything solid.

[parsifal]

I also very seriously doubt the 102 claimed losses for the Japanese. During the whole 4 month opening period of the war, the japanese only lost about 250 aircraft in combat. The allies, in contrast lost over 1000. Thats an exchange rate of 4:1. Malaya was run perhaps even worse than the "average" air battles so it would not be an over-estimation to look at an excahnge rate of about 5:1 for tis particular campaign. Since there were roughly 300 aircraft in the theatre, Japanese losses could be estimated to be in the order of 60 aircraft.

To achieve 102 kills against the Japanese, one would have to argue that the air campaign over Malaya was handled in an above average way. I sweriously doubt that. Burma, maybe, Malaya, no way.

For the record, incidentally, there were less than 50 Zeroes deployed over Malaya at the beginning. Since the japanese expected the major aerial resistance over the Philipinnes, the majority of the land based zeroes (about 100) were deployed into Formosa. This did change after the rapid demise of the USAAAF in the early part of the campaign

[Von Frag]

Been lurking here for quite sometime, and decided to add my 2 cents worth.

Sorry if this has been gone over already concerning the Buffalo, but the one thing that has yet to be brought up, is pilot experience. While the Russians had good pilots, most at the time of the continuation war were not, hence the success of the Finns flying the Brewster. Conversely, the Marines at Midway were mostly green, right out of training. I can't say for sure how well the Commonwealth pilots over Singapore were trained, but I have read that training was a problem. Add to this that in both cases they were up against some of the best trained pilots in the world with alot of experience, the outcome is not hard to predict.

Von Richtofen said it best, "it is not the crate, but the man in the crate that makes the difference".

[slaterat]

parsifal wrote

I also very seriously doubt the 102 claimed losses for the Japanese. During the whole 4 month opening period of the war, the japanese only lost about 250 aircraft in combat.

Actual Japanese losses over Singapore were at least 102 aircraft, that's from Japanese sources. The 3rd Composite Air Division suffered total losses from all causes of 331 aircraft form the start of the war to the fall of Singapore.

Bloody Shambles p385.

Joeb wrote

That's a misreading of that source I'm afraid. My numbers are the cumulated results of actual outcomes given in that book combat by combat. Yes the book also summarizes the losses *to all causes* of each type Hurricane and Buffalo, Japanese losses *to all causes* and *claims* of the Hurricanes and Buffalo's, but you're basically saying the vague and general info given on that page contradicts the actual results combat by combat given in the same book! That doesn't work

I beg to differ. The summaries are the actual results.The 102 figure is admitted combat losses of the JAF and the JNAF 22nd Air Flotilla. Trying to reconcile them with the day to day combat results is impossible, the daily records are incomplete. Many ORBs were destroyed and rewritten much later. You have stated previously that you only count daily combats for which records exist for both sides, by definition that is incomplete. I don't believe that using only fighter vs fighter stats is accurate either as the prime role of the defenders would be to break up the bomber formations first/ save your own a$$ later.

Nor is there any reason to just consider Singapore,

The choice of Singapore is obvious as you have Buffaloes and Hurricanes operating side by side against the same enemy in the same conditions. This keeps the impact of extraneous factors to a minimum. Similar to your comparison of Corsair vs Hellcats.

In Singapore the Hurricane proved far superior to the Buffalo.

I've gotta run right now will be back later to continue http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ima...n_confused.gif

[Elvis]

Re: Kool Kitty's Finnish Buffalo kill ratio.

This is a direct quote from the November 1996 issue of Aviation History magazine's article on the exploits of the Finns versus the Russian's during their conflict of 1941-1944, entitled "Brewster Buffalo Finland's unlikely Acemaker".

"The success of fighter aircraft is usually based upon the records of high-scoring aces as well as the ratio of victories vs. losses in combat. The bent-wing Chance Vought F4U / Goodyear FG Corsairs enjoyed an 11-to-1 victory-to-loss ratio, while Grumman F6F Hellcats boasted a 19-to-1 ratio. But the rather obscure and maligned U.S. World War II Brewster naval fighter scored an amazing victory-to-loss ratio of 26-to-1 when flown by the fighter pilots of Finland against the overwhelming Soviet air force between 1941 and 1944. Finnish Brewsters shot down 496 enemy aircraft with a loss of only 19 Brewsters in aerial combat.
The highest scoring Hellcat ace, David S. McCampbell, shot down 34 planes. The highest scoring Corsair ace, Robert M. Hanson, destroyed 25 aircraft in aerial combat. However, the highest scoring Brewster ace, Finland's Hans H. Wind, shot down 39 enemy aircraft. This is not intended to cast asperations on the Corsairs and Hellcats, nor on their valiant pilots; it is merely meant to recount the relative merits of the Brewster and its outnumbered Finnish air force pilots."

(note: End of first paragraph highlighted by me, but not in article, to draw attention to the numbers mentioned)

As for Brewsters in the Pacific theatre, I heard most were shot up still sitting on the ground.
I take it that is not correct?



Elvis

[steelDUST]

The worst? I'd say it's the Polikarpov I-15. 2,200 were lost in the first week of German invasion of Russia in June 1941.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by steelDUST

The worst? I'd say it's the Polikarpov I-15. 2,200 were lost in the first week of German invasion of Russia in June 1941.

The I-15 was one of the best bi-plane fighters built in the 1930s. It did very well over Spain. Can you say "Obsolete?" That was the problem with the I-15 and many other Soviet aircraft at the start of WW2. They performed as advertised, they were just overtaken by newer equipment.

[Captain Dunsel]

Slaterat, my only question with comparing Hurri's with Buffalos at Singapore is that of pilot experience. How well trained were the Hurri pilots vice the Buffalo drivers?

CD