Underappreciated Aircraft of WWII

[buffnut453]

Sorry is not a problem of sample size.

So what is the problem? Why is sample size not relevant given the huge complexity of variables in air combat? The relative altitudes of the aircraft alone is sometimes sufficient to decide the outcome of an engagement. If one aircraft type, because of circumstance, consistently found itself at higher altitude and in greater numbers than the enemy for a small total number of engagements, it should have a better combat record than a type that had far more engagements but was routinely outnumbered and caught flying below the enemy.

 

[Vincenzo]

So what is the problem? Why is sample size not relevant given the huge complexity of variables in air combat? The relative altitudes of the aircraft alone is sometimes sufficient to decide the outcome of an engagement. If one aircraft type, because of circumstance, consistently found itself at higher altitude and in greater numbers than the enemy for a small total number of engagements, it should have a better combat record than a type that had far more engagements but was routinely outnumbered and caught flying below the enemy.

because we have not take samples, we have two distribution to compare, we have not take two sample from a universe or people, and try to know the results from intere universe or people, i'm sorry my english is already bad and idk the english statistician words, i hope if some english speacking statistic learned can hep me in explanation

 

[claidemore]

I'm not a statistician, but I do know that we are not looking at a sample of the Mohawks combat record, we are looking at the entire Mohawk combat record.
No one doubts the ability of the Ta-152, which had fewer actual engagements than the Mohawks in Burma, so why doubt the Mohawk?
As I mentioned before, there isn't a case where the Hawk/Mohwak was employed where it had a particularly poor showing, so success (or relative success) in Burma isn't an anomoly, it's part of a pattern. France, Finland, Burma; three completely different theatres against completely different plane types and airforces where the plane achieved either parity or a positive kill ratio.

 

[fastmongrel]

Were Hurricanes in the East lumbered with the enormous Vokes Air filters like the Hurricanes in the desert. If they were that could explain the poor showing of the Hurricane. I have read that they killed the top speed and climb speed, which was not too great anyway at that time in the war.

 

[Juha]

Very good point fastmongrel, probably one of the reasons why Hurricanes did rather poorly in Asia,
All I can say, that Finnish AF Hurricanes didn't have Vokes filters and that some of the Soviet ones had and other didn't have,

Juha

 

[Nikademus]

the point it that too small can't be a opinion the statistics give the instruments...

If i'm understanding you correctly, I most heartily disagree.

 

[Nikademus]

Joe,

I may have missed it but I couldn't find the Ki-43 loss on 22 Jan 43 so I ended up with a total of 6 Ki-43 "kills" by Mohawks (I didn't count losses where the aircraft return to its operating base). However, 2 of those were due to mid-air collisions with Mohawks while another resulted from the Ki-43 crashing into the ground while chasing the Mohawk at low level.
Kind regards,
Mark

Hi,

I rechecked 22 Jan43 and do not see a Ki-43 loss either. I'm showing 2 x Hurricane lost to AA, a Ki-21 lost to a Mohawk, and another Hurricane lost to a Ki-43.

22 Nov 42 is one of those examples of ambiguity that can frustrate a researcher. Usually I do count mid-air collisions as kills but in some cases this can be dicey, esp if the collision seems accidental vs. intentional (A Russian specialty as it turns out!) or in this case, the collision had nothing to do with the plane being attacked! For consistency's sake however I did count Ito's death as a kill though there were grounds not to do so.

I did not count Yamada as a kill because he did successfully force land at Akyab airfield and in such cases i usually do not count success airfield landings by damaged planes as kills *unless* they are deadstick landings. Given that Yamada died later (unspecified time period) in a hosptial makes that too dicey for me personally to count it. Thus my total for that day is 2 x Mohawk (Ki-43), and 2 Ki-43(Mohawk (including the dicey "Collision" 'self kill' by Ito), 2 x Blenheim (ki-43) and 1 x Blenheim (AA)

 

[Vincenzo]

If i'm understanding you correctly, I most heartily disagree.

as you want but you aren't disagree with me but with statistics

 

[Nikademus]

It seemed you were discounting the Malta results, still does actually in this more recent post.

Nope. I mentioned Malta and 7/JG26's achievement 'and' the results from Greece specifically to show how the overall ratio for a period of time can vary with essentially the same aircraft in different settings. (and in this case, the same primary opponent.) Its not a discount, its an emphasis of my point that yes indeed, there's alot more going on vis-a-vis exchange ratios than just the aircraft themselves. In the case of Malta, citing an incredible 35:0 exchange ratio demands that more detail be explained in why it happened. The Greece example was cited simply to show again the difference that can be seen in the exchange ratio (with the same opponent types over Malta) and no....it wasn't due to one pilot's efforts.

As far as BoB, like I said, I don't know of a 'granualar level' analysis that allows counting of Hurricane v 109 kills/losses comparable to the books we've been discussing.

Which is still no reason to dismiss such a major battle in which the Hurricane was not only a major contributor, but the majority contributor. (it shot down the most planes on the British side and was present in larger #'s than the Spit though the latter gets all the glory from most accounts)
I'm showing an approximate 1.28:1 exchange ratio in favor of the Luftwaffe overall in just fighter vs. fighter exchanges. (1.33:1 in favor of the UK for total airframe losses)**

I've yet to document in any BoB book yet that does not give the advantage in training, experience and tactical doctrine to the Luftwaffe, particularly in fighter tactics. The RAF of course had key advantages in early warning and command control but suffered greatly from outdated tactics and were deficient in experience and adequately trained replacements. However one wants to look at it though it was a fine performance by both the Spit and especially the Hurricane.

**these figures use 8/6/40 - 9/15/40 as the primary BoB period

 

[Vincenzo]

for the Mohawk and Hurricane comparation, idk but there were hurricane units in fight over east africa?

 

[claidemore]

Hi,

I rechecked 22 Jan43 and do not see a Ki-43 loss either. I'm showing 2 x Hurricane lost to AA, a Ki-21 lost to a Mohawk, and another Hurricane lost to a Ki-43.

22 Nov 42 is one of those examples of ambiguity that can frustrate a researcher. Usually I do count mid-air collisions as kills but in some cases this can be dicey, esp if the collision seems accidental vs. intentional (A Russian specialty as it turns out!) or in this case, the collision had nothing to do with the plane being attacked! For consistency's sake however I did count Ito's death as a kill though there were grounds not to do so.

I did not count Yamada as a kill because he did successfully force land at Akyab airfield and in such cases i usually do not count success airfield landings by damaged planes as kills *unless* they are deadstick landings. Given that Yamada died later (unspecified time period) in a hosptial makes that too dicey for me personally to count it. Thus my total for that day is 2 x Mohawk (Ki-43), and 2 Ki-43(Mohawk (including the dicey "Collision" 'self kill' by Ito), 2 x Blenheim (ki-43) and 1 x Blenheim (AA)

I agree that Itos death should be included. It's not like both planes were cruising along enjoying the scenery totally unaware of each other and just happened to cross each others flight path. This is no civil aviation accident. These planes were in combat, manuevering to keep from getting shot or to get a shot, and one or both pilots screwed up and they collided. That's a combat loss anyway you look at it, and the surviving plane is the instrument of the others destruction. The airforce in question might not choose to award a pilot a kill for an accidental collission, but we who are comparing the combat effectiveness of a plane cannot choose to simply ignore a situation where one plane showed a clear advantage (structural strength) over the other. For me this is not a dicey kill at all, and you are absolutely correct to include it.

I disagree with your rationalization for Yamadas 'kill'. His plane was claimed by the RAF pilot initially. Later research showing that the pilot managed to land but died of his wounds makes that a confirmation. The pilot is dead, due to wounds recieved in combat, if that does not constutue a 'kill', then what does? The RAF pilot successfully removed the enemy pilot from the war, and in all likelihood the plane as well, at the very least temporarily. This is clearly a successful encounter for the RAF pilot and his plane.

 

[buffnut453]

but we who are comparing the combat effectiveness of a plane cannot choose to simply ignore a situation where one plane showed a clear advantage (structural strength) over the other.

But an event where 2 aircraft are manoeuvering and the tailplane of one happens to hit the wingtip of another (the former aircraft crashing due to the loss of its tailplane, the latter aircraft landing albeit with damage) says nothing about the either combat effectiveness or structural strength of either aircraft. Hate to be a killjoy on this but when we're using kill/loss as a metric of aircraft performance, it needs to be based on a sensible set of criteria to ensure we're comparing like with like. Happenstance accidents (irrespective of the fact that both aircraft were manoeuvering in combat) is irrelevant to the argument.

FWIW, I had the privilege of meeting Wg Cdr Ken MacKenzie who famously knocked off the tail of a Me109 after he'd expended all his ammo trying to shoot it down. Whilst undoubtedly a kill that would be credited to the pilot, when taken in the context of other aerial combats involving the types, does it really help understanding of the combat performance of either type?

 

[claidemore]

FWIW, I had the privilege of meeting Wg Cdr Ken MacKenzie who famously knocked off the tail of a Me109 after he'd expended all his ammo trying to shoot it down. Whilst undoubtedly a kill that would be credited to the pilot, when taken in the context of other aerial combats involving the types, does it really help understanding of the combat performance of either type?

Yes this does reflect on the combat performance of MacKenzies plane, because MacKenzie was able to manuever his plane into position to take the 109s tail off. If his plane was not capable of staying with the 109 he could not have done it. If his plane was too slow, or not agile enough, the 109 would have escaped.
Obviously his plane was the equal, or better of the 109 in that combat.

Following the logic of not counting collisions we would have to discredit all the VI flying bombs that were taken out by tipping their wings. I don't think anybody wants to do that.

Really, if we are discounting claims that are not supported by loss records, and we are not factoring in ground attack, escort effectiveness etc, we are in fact comparing combat losses to combat losses.

The fragilty of the Ki-43 is well documented, and the strength of the Curtiss planes (P36 and P40) is well documented. For those reasons the two collissions involving Mohawks/Oscars serves as supporting evidence about the structural strength advantage of the Mohawk, even if two collisions are not by themselves definitive proof. They definately do not disprove the strength advantage of the Curtiss plane.

I did finally find the RAE comparison of the Hawk 75 and Spitfire. Consensus of opinion by all pilots who flew both planes in the tests was that the Hawk was a much better dogfighter than the Spitfire, with considerably better aileron effectiveness at high speeds (3/4 deflection for Hawk compared to 1/5 deflection for Spitfire at 400 mph)[note:Spitfires and Hurricanes exhibit almost identical roll rates at high speeds].

From the RAE report:

The Curtiss H75 is undoubtedly the best of these three aircraft (Spitfire,Hurricane, Hawk 75A) for any form of aerial combat in which manoeverability is of prime importance.

In other words, a dogfight against Ki-43 Hayabusas. The Hurricane couldn't do it, the Spitfire couldn't do it, but the Hawk 75 could.

 

[buffnut453]

Yes this does reflect on the combat performance of MacKenzies plane, because MacKenzie was able to manuever his plane into position to take the 109s tail off. If his plane was not capable of staying with the 109 he could not have done it. If his plane was too slow, or not agile enough, the 109 would have escaped. Obviously his plane was the equal, or better of the 109 in that combat.

Yes, after he'd emptied all his ammo into it and still not managed to shoot it down. The Me109 was heading for home, not manoeuvering and with a damaged engine. Great courage shown by MacKenzie in knocking off the tail - and it was a deliberate act rather than an accident - but by your logic re Mohawk vs Ki-43 the Hurricane should be classed as being structurally superior to the Me109.

Really, if we are discounting claims that are not supported by loss records, and we are not factoring in ground attack, escort effectiveness etc, we are in fact comparing combat losses to combat losses.

The whole thrust of this thread has been relative performance of the Mohawk and Hurricane against the Ki-43. It's not about absolute victories but those where the performance of one aircraft resulted in a victory over the other. An accidental collision or an aircraft crashing due to its own pilot's error obfuscates rather than clarifies the matter, and when 50% of the Mohawk's "victories" come from these accidental causes, it leads to incorrect extrapolation. I'm not talking generically, I'm talking for this specific operational environment.

YThe fragilty of the Ki-43 is well documented, and the strength of the Curtiss planes (P36 and P40) is well documented. For those reasons the two collissions involving Mohawks/Oscars serves as supporting evidence about the structural strength advantage of the Mohawk, even if two collisions are not by themselves definitive proof. They definately do not disprove the strength advantage of the Curtiss plane.

I'm not disputing that the Ki-43 had structural weaknesses. However, any WWII fighter which lost it's tailplane due to a mid-air collision was destined to crash out of control shortly thereafter. Conversely most WWII fighters could be successfully (force-)landed without a wingtip, depending on how much area of wing was removed. The accidental crashes between RAF Mohawks and Ki-43s prove nothing in terms of combat performance of either type.

I did finally find the RAE comparison of the Hawk 75 and Spitfire. Consensus of opinion by all pilots who flew both planes in the tests was that the Hawk was a much better dogfighter than the Spitfire, with considerably better aileron effectiveness at high speeds (3/4 deflection for Hawk compared to 1/5 deflection for Spitfire at 400 mph)[note:Spitfires and Hurricanes exhibit almost identical roll rates at high speeds].

From the RAE report: In other words, a dogfight against Ki-43 Hayabusas. The Hurricane couldn't do it, the Spitfire couldn't do it, but the Hawk 75 could.

Ok, then we have one good, solid reason for explaining the difference in performance between the Mohawk and Ki-43. I suspect there are others, and (as I keep repeating) we need to compare apples to apples given the small number of Mohawk victories. I've almost finished the Hurricane review from "Air War for Burma" which I hope to post later today. I believe this will present an argument that the Mohawk was superior to the Hurricane but not to the extent indicated by the statistics Joe put forward.

Once again, I'm not knocking the Mohawk - I am actually very fond of the type. I do want to understand WHY it's performance was better and to do that we have to remove accidental "victories" from the equation.

KR
Mark

 

[Markus]

Were Hurricanes in the East lumbered with the enormous Vokes Air filters like the Hurricanes in the desert. If they were that could explain the poor showing of the Hurricane. I have read that they killed the top speed and climb speed, which was not too great anyway at that time in the war.

They did! I quickly checked Vol.3 of "Bloody Shambles", all pics of Hurricanes I saw show the distinctive air intake.

 

[Nikademus]

I disagree with your rationalization for Yamadas 'kill'. His plane was claimed by the RAF pilot initially. Later research showing that the pilot managed to land but died of his wounds makes that a confirmation.

One can make a case for it. For the sake of consistancy however i disallowed it because by definition, Yamada was able to successfully land at Akyab airfield in a wounded state. Had he recovered from his wounds, it would not be a kill. However he did die at some later unspecified time after the "battle". Why exactly and from what complications cannot be stated. It might have, for all we know been due to the services available at the hospital. The point being for me, is that many pilots were wounded in battle who successfully landed. We may not have all information on which lived and which later died and why. (complications? etc) As such, again from a consistancy standpoint, I did not count it because normally, i do not count successful force landings at friendly airfields as kills unless in a Deadstick situation. You can argue that Yamada was the "deadstick" in this case but again...his death might have been due to other complications apart from his combat.

This is but one example of many a grey area when it comes to classifying "kills" Definitions vary by nation and circumstances arn't always black and white. One ends up making judgement calls. Best one can do is try to apply a consistant process to each kill. Each researcher has his own system, which is why estimates vary even when using the same source!

Ito, as mentioned is another example of a judgement call. As a rule I "do" count collisions as combat kills and as such, for the sake of "consistancy" i counted it, but given the specific points made in this thread. (re: Mohawk effectiveness vs Hurricane effectiveness), its in reality not a valid kill to compare the two planes since the Mohawk did not account for Ito, rather Ito accounted for himself by running into the tail of the Mohawk he was pursuing!

So while i'd count it....in the context of this thread i'd turn around and point out that you can't really rate that "kill" as due to any particular attribute of the Mohawk. The Mohawk pilot fortunately recovered from his spin and thus doesn't get counted but he very well might have replay that scene over again.

 

[Nikademus]

for the Mohawk and Hurricane comparation, idk but there were hurricane units in fight over east africa?

Yes. Hurricanes fought in East Africa.

I recorded 21 lost,

4 to Cr-42's
3 to Cr-32's
1 to S-79
6 to AA
1 on the Ground (air attack)
6 operationally.

In return, they scored:

7 x Cr-32
18 x Cr-42
4 x S-79
2 x S-81
6 x Ca-133

 

[buffnut453]

I agree with Nikademus about the incident involving Yamada. We need to carefully define what constitutes a kill to ensure we're comparing similar data sets. Yamada's aircraft was damaged. It landed successfully. Therefore it was not a confirmed kill. The fact that he died is irrelevant to the discussion of kills/losses (although, of course, it was of great significance to Yamada's family and friends). There are countless stories of damaged aircraft flying all the way back to base where they land but are subsequently written off as being beyond economic repair. It is impossible to identify all of these so, for sake of consistency, I used the following criteria in my assessments:

A kill is caused by hostile gunfire from an enemy fighter aircraft which results in the victim aircraft failing to return to a friendly airfield. Details of losses on both sides must be available for the combat to be included in the evaluation.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[Vincenzo]

imho a damaged aircraft flying all the way back to base where they land but are subsequently written off as being beyond economic repair it's a loss

 

[Vincenzo]

Yes. Hurricanes fought in East Africa.

I recorded 21 lost,

4 to Cr-42's
3 to Cr-32's
1 to S-79
6 to AA
1 on the Ground (air attack)
6 operationally.

In return, they scored:

7 x Cr-32
18 x Cr-42
4 x S-79
2 x S-81
6 x Ca-133

good data,
so C.R. 32 was more difficult for Hurricanes that most recent C.R. 42,

and for Mohawk someone has data?