Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: How to judge what the best fighter plane is?
45-Shooter    1/3/2013 5:09:26 PM
I would list the following traits in the order of their importance; 1. Cruising speed under combat conditions. 2. Range/Persistence under combat conditions. 3. Flight qualities, specifically the ability to point the nose at the target easily and a very high rate of roll. 4. CL Guns with high MV/BC and rates of fire. 5. Pitch response, IE the rate at which you can load the plane. 6. Climb at Military Power. In WW-II terms, that means ~75-80% throttle, rich mixture and appropriate pitch on the prop.( A setting that can be held for at least 30 minutes!) 7. Top speed! To escape or run down the target. 8. Lastly the ability to turn in the so called "Dog Fight"! After you rate these choices, I'll mark the list with what I think is the strength of each atribute.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38   NEXT
45-Shooter       1/7/2013 7:20:15 PM

Shooter, if you want to prioritise a few characteristics then how about starting with visual signature Since visual signature is one of my prime considerations and has been mentioned several times before, I thought you were all either ignorant of the facts, or did not care. Given that the ability to see varies with the indavidual pilot, only the size of the target is important! Smaller targets are harder to see which is part of the reason why the Me-109 and Fw-190 are so hard to see and thus top of the heap in this catagory! Fact, sight and rate of climbThis is highly over rated, IF you have a decent target aquisition system. IE, Radar, Sky-Watch, etc. ( Because one of the prime determinants of rate of climb is wing aera, it is diametrically in opposition to other much more important paramiters, IE Speed!  Seeing the enemy first IS VITALLY IMPORTANT! This is why I am willing to trade speed for a slower bubble canopy! in a fast climbing aircraft would give a WW2 pilot the opportunity to climb above him and attack from an advantageous position, preferably out of the sun. Get the height on your opponent and attack him by surprise and you only need to be able to dive as fast as he can cruise. This is simply piffle. You must have overtaking speed to force, or evade combat! Just diving as fast as the enemy can cruise gets you absolutely nothing!As for the Northern European “Turkey Shoot” of late 41 through to mid 42, that was all to do with theFw-190 being the best fighter in the World at the time and being able to outclass the Spitfire Mk-V. What about 43-44 and the Mk-IX getting it's head handed to them? The best the Americans would have had to offer in any numbers during that period was the P-40 .... just saying. What about the P-38/39/51?

As for Hartmann, he was the best ace ever and therefore an atypical example. Irrelevant to the discussion.



As for Heartmann... Yes he was the best ace ever, but hardly atypical! ALL ACES are "Atypical! If the pilot is not extraordinary, then he never shoots down anything! Only the top 5-10% become ACES! all the rest are typical pilots which means that they never kill anyone!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/7/2013 7:42:40 PM

Actually according to Spick not only was Hartman not the best, he wasnt even the best German Ace, he just encounted more target per sortee and flew more sorties than the rest, if you compare kills per contact hartman is only the 73 best german ace (and a number of british canadian, austrailian and american aces feature a lot higher) You are absolutely correct! Luck has a tremendous part to play in the running up the score game of fighter pilot aces. And he was with out a boubt the luckiets man alive! BUT, having said that his tactics also plaied a huge roll in his success and survival. I'll bet that most of the people on your list also followed his dicta?

Shooter has a tendancy to fit facts to his vision of the world and ignore anything that does fit his world.
What does not fit? Pilots who are good enough to kill and smart enough to survive can run up large scores, but they do not as a rule do it by "Dogfighting"! 
A pure boom a zoom fighter will only be succssfull if you can control the fight, if you cant then you end up with a just a target somthing that once started will only get worse.
This IS a MONUMENTAL Failure of your thought proccesses! Speed does give you control of the fight! That is why all real fighter pilots believe "SPEED IS LIFE"! If you could only have one atribute in a fighter plane where yours was say 20% better than theirs while ALL other atributes of your plane was 10-20 worse than theirs, Speed would give you command of the sky! WO Superior speed, you can not force combat except by ambush, one of our favorite tactics, and can not escape a unwanted combat. But given a solid speed advantage, you can force combat, prevent any escape and given that same advantage in cruise speed be very much harder, if not impossible to intercept by ambush! 
a few points, first cl guns suffer though loss of rof (especially the .5 browning) unless you have a pusher or a twin (which both have its own problem) True, but the advantages far out class the defects, which are themselves easy to fix! Look up Berzin rates of fire through a prop disc! persistance - one of his all time favorite(s), Is second best! Speed is certainly number one! is a complete red herring, more range than you need is pointless, fuel is weight which is badNo, weight is good! You just do not know when and why! the best fighter will only carry enough to do its job, the mustang in RAF service only had a fraction of the range of the USAAF operated aircraft as the RAF had no need of the extream range 

rate of roll, nice but not hugely important the MKIX spit could be out rolled by the 190 but that did not give the 190 significant advantageExactly how many RAF aces flew the Mk-IX Spitfire and how many German aces flew the Fw-190? as the climb and dive did over the mkV with the cliped wings (the MkIX didnt get the clipped wings which it would have done if it had been such a deal breaker) I have several books that say the Mk-IX DID get the clipped wings? 

cl guns whilst nice to were less important than exploding cannons, which if cl mounted were the best but even wing cannons were superior to mg on the centerline, the longest range confirmed kill in WW2 was by a MkV spit with 20mm wing mounted cannons
Please provide link to same with details.
They have film of Yamamoto's plane getting hosed at 750 yards, if it's longer than that and a common occurance, then I'll believe it, but from everything I've ever read, or heard, CL Guns ARE Required for A2A Combat! Why did all the post war combat AC have CL guns, instead of locating the mass out in the wings where it would replace lead and Tungston weights at least in some of them?

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/7/2013 9:19:21 PM
Shooter, instead of demanding that others do all the research, how about you start providing some links because so far you have provided nothing substantial to back up your claims. Lets start with the RAFs supposed difficulties of 43 and 44 in Europe. Put up or shut up.
 
Your comments on rate of climb being over-rated are utter rubbish. If you want to learn about how important time to height is,  get yourself an account of how the Fw-190s beat the Spitfire MkVs over the Dieppe Raid. They climbed so quickly to 25,000 or above when the air cover for the raid was coming in that they managed to get above the Spitfire Vs and fought them into the ground. The fact that they could rapidly climb through the lower part of the climb allowed them to gain critical height, compensating the Fw-190s poorer performance at higher altitudes.
 
You also should do some reading on how much the Aussie P-40 pilots didn't like the fact that virtually all of the Japanese fighters could climb above them in New Guinea and gain the advantage. That is why the RAAF got Spitfire MkVs (which were actually out of date by that time), there was no other fighter available at that time that could get to height in time to do the high altitude intercepts above Darwin, and even the Spits had to flog their engines to do it. 
 
Also read this quote about why rate of climb combined with visual signature is important. "Kurt Bühligen..., third highest scoring German pilot on Western front with 112 victories, recalled later: “The P-38 fighter (and the B-24) were easy to burn. Once in Africa we were six and met eight P-38s and shot down seven. One sees a great distance in Africa and our observers and flak people called in sightings and we could get altitude first and they were low and slow.”"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-38_Lightning#Operational_history
 
Horizontal speed is just one way to dictate the fight, rate of climb and effective operational ceiling, the latter of which we have forgotten so far, can also be used to stay out of reach of the enemy until the pilot decides what he wants to do.
 
My comment on dive vs cruise speed was simply poorly worded, I meant that the aircraft needs to be able to overtake the cruising aircraft in the dive. It is academic for most WW2 types that we are talking about anyway because they were all more than fast enough to pull off a surprise bounce.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/7/2013 10:08:55 PM

Your comments on rate of climb being over-rated are utter rubbish. We all have our oppinions! I would dispute the details you post! I would say that; 1. The Fw-190 was the measure of the Spit-V regardless of altitude. 2. The Germans had better EWR and more time to get it all done. 3. No one ever remarks about the 2nd best climbing plane of WW-II, why is that? 

You also should do some reading on how much the Aussie P-40 pilots didn't like the fact that virtually all of the Japanese fighters could climb above them in New Guinea and gain the advantage. Do you think they would have minded IF those planes had been as quick climbing as the Me-109K, or as fast, or as well armed, or anything but what they were? What did the Spitfire pilots over Darwin say about the Zero after getting their arses colectively shot off? 

Irealivant post part deleted.

Horizontal speed is just one the best by far way to dictate the fight, rate of climb Does not matter much at all, in relation to speed. Note that speed also confers some sort of influance on rate of climb. but not as much as a large wing takes away from speed! and effective operational ceilingAll of these types could climb above the "Death Zone" at about 28,000' so WO pressurized cockpits... the latter of which we have forgotten so far, not at all! can also be used to stay out of reach of the enemy until the pilot decides what he wants to do.All hail the Ta-152H2! 

My comment on dive vs cruise speed was simply poorly worded, I meant that the aircraft needs to be able to overtake the cruising aircraft in the dive. It is academic for most WW2 types that we are talking about anyway because they were all more than fast enough to pull off a surprise bounce. YES! This is absolutely true! As far as it goes! Cruise speed vs Attack speed dictates the differential speed, which in turn dictates the TIME to CLOSE range! Speed in it self is only realitive. It is the differance that counts. So if the P-38 can Cruise efficiently at 360MPH/29,000', how long does it take any attacker to close to 300 yard/meters astern? I'll tell you longer than any other plane of it's time! That time converts to more sectors of sky scanned and a larger chance to detect the attack before it is furball or die! Look up what the Germans thought of a head on pass Vs the P-38, if you do not believe me! 

Let us put this rate of climb thing into perspective. At Max Continous Power, or Military Power, or what ever you wish to call it, a plane takes a long time to climb to great hight you mentioned above. It is not nearly close to the so called "Plackard" figures! But if Maximum power is used to make Plackard numbers, then when the first 5 minutes are gone, the plane MUST throttle back to less than max continous, and let the engine cool or it will quit running!
So warning time becomes ever so much more important to all of us on the allied side because the Germans and their use of 87 octane gas and such larger and less stressed, realively speaking, engines let them climb for far longer than we could WO burning the engine up.
Then there is the speed related to climb dilema. Speed gives good climb all by itself. Not quite as good as a low wing loading, or high aspect ratio, but non the less certainly good enough for our work here. In reality, all the planes had more than enough time to climb to any altitude they needed while they formed up to have a Mass attack. So climb is not that important when compaired to the ability to dictate combat at will!
 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/8/2013 3:47:01 AM

Hartman I'll bet that most of the people on your list also followed his dicta?


Wrong as most started thie carriers before or at the same time if you had read Mike Spick you would know this


What does not fit? Pilots who are good enough to kill and smart enough to survive can run up large scores, but they do not as a rule do it by "Dogfighting"!  
 
realy? yet history says that air battle were not one by pilot picking off straglers, the major engagemens di end up in dogfights and pilots of both side were lost doing thier job, not hanging arround out of the fight and picking off easy targets to run up thier scores  

This IS a MONUMENTAL Failure of your thought proccesses! Speed does give you control of the fight! That is why all real fighter pilots believe "SPEED IS LIFE"! If you could only have one atribute in a fighter plane where yours was say 20% better than theirs while ALL other atributes of your plane was 10-20 worse than theirs, Speed would give you command of the sky! WO Superior speed, you can not force combat except by ambush, one of our favorite tactics, and can not escape a unwanted combat. But given a solid speed advantage, you can force combat, prevent any escape and given that same advantage in cruise speed be very much harder, if not impossible to intercept by ambush! 
 
But crusie speed is NOT combat speed the fact you can cruise to the battle 20mph faster is irrelivant if you are NO faster under combat conditions, I did not mention Combat speed just your assertion that Crusie speed is important,

, fuel is weight which is badNo, weight is good! You just do not know when and why! the best fighter will only carry enough to do its job, the mustang in RAF service only had a fraction of the range of the USAAF operated aircraft as the RAF had no need of the extream range 
 
sorry I dont get this, i the previous paragraph you say speed is important now you say weight is good, but weight reduces speed, take a Modern F1 car, they fuel it so it cannot run flat out for the whole race, why? because the weight of the extra fuel makes the car slower so over a race the average speed is less, the same for a fighter more speed = less weight, even supply the tankage space for the fuel is adding extra weight - not a good thig
 

rate of roll, nice but not hugely important the MKIX spit could be out rolled by the 190 but that did not give the 190 significant advantageExactly how many RAF aces flew the Mk-IX Spitfire and how many German aces flew the Fw-190?
 
Dont you Know? basic facts you need to be aware of.  The MkIX was regarded as more than a match for the fw190 by the RAF and Luftwaffe
 
as the climb and dive did over the mkV with the cliped wings (the MkIX didnt get the clipped wings which it would have done if it had been such a deal breaker) I have several books that say the Mk-IX DID get the clipped wings? 
 
The Provide a source because I have never seen it and have from a spit expert that has shot you dowm many times decalring that they were not standard fitting and he was not aware of tem used in combat

, the longest range confirmed kill in WW2 was by a MkV spit with 20mm wing mounted cannons Please provide link to same with details.
 
did you not read your own source as it stated in Mike Spick book! Try ScrewballBeurling

They have film of Yamamoto's plane getting hosed at 750 yards, if it's longer than that and a common occurance, then I'll believe it, but from everything I've ever read, or heard, CL Guns ARE Required for A2A Combat! Why did all the post war combat AC have CL guns, instead of locating the mass out in the wings where it would replace lead and Tungston weights at least in some of them?

of course it was an uusual occurance as was the yamaoto kill, cl guns are best if you have a sight that can deal with deflection (or a brain that can)

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/8/2013 1:55:52 PM

Hartman I'll bet that most of the people on your list also followed his dicta?
Wrong as most started thie carriers before or at the same time if you had read Mike Spick you would know this
His "Dicta" were published in the first world war! 
 
What does not fit? Pilots who are good enough to kill, but they do not as a rule do it by "Dogfighting"!
realy? yet history says that air battle were not one by pilot picking off straglers, the major engagemens di end up in dogfights and pilots of both side were lost doing thier job, not hanging arround out of the fight and picking off easy targets to run up thier scores  You are right in this, but only 5-10% of targets are shot downin this manner.

This IS a MONUMENTAL Failure of your thought proccesses! Speed does give you control of the fight! That is why all real fighter pilots believe "SPEED IS LIFE"! If you could only have one atribute in a fighter plane where yours was say 20% better than theirs while ALL other atributes of your plane was 10-20 worse than theirs, Speed would give you command of the sky! WO Superior speed, you can not force combat except by ambush, one of our favorite tactics, and can not escape a unwanted combat. But given a solid speed advantage, you can force combat, prevent any escape and given that same advantage in cruise speed be very much harder, if not impossible to intercept by ambush! 
But crusie speed is NOT combat speed the fact you can cruise to the battle 20mph faster is irrelivant if you are NO faster under combat conditions, I did not mention Combat speed just your assertion that Crusie speed is important, But cruise speed is combat speed until after the first pass and it determines how long and how many sectors of sky you can search before he kills you.
previous paragraph you say speed is important now you say weight is good, but weight reduces speed, take a Modern F1 car, they fuel it so it cannot run flat out for the whole race, why?Because the rules state that it must stop for fuel twice, or be disqualified! Weight is good because it gives your plane more energy. it would have done if it had been such a deal breaker) I have several books that say the Mk-IX DID get the clipped wings? 
Then Provide a source because I have never seen it and have from a spit expert that has shot you dowm many times decalring that they were not standard fitting and he was not aware of tem used in combat See Page 324 of "Spitfire, the history" by E. B. Morgan and Edward Shacklady! At the bottom of the page is a picture of the clipped wing, LF variant of which several hundred, or a thousand something were made. I was too lazy to look up the exact figs, but they are in the following pages, starting at 333.
   

, the longest range confirmed kill in WW2 was by a MkV spit with 20mm wing mounted cannons
did you not read your own source as it stated in Mike Spick book! Try Screwball Beurling Thank you for the refferance, but could you please state which of the six or seven books it is in? Yes, originally I did read it, but my brain is rotting away and I did not remember that specific part.
of course it was an uusual occurance as was the yamaoto kill, cl guns are best if you have a sight that can deal with deflection (or a brain that can) No, CL guns are best under all circumstances! But they are the very best at down the throat, heads on pass, engagements! They are better at dog fighting because it is even harder to controll the range in the swerling furball that is the typical dogfight. Under those conditions, it is impossible to think about where the guns are actually pointed in relation to the sight reticule. To have the guns pointed at some other place than the target under the piper is making things HARDER for the already over loaded pilot!

Once again, thank you for the refferance. Now I'll have to the books and then search through them to find that. Do you know if there is film of it? Sincerely,
Shooter.

 
 
Quote    Reply

oldbutnotwise       1/8/2013 3:12:28 PM

oh you mean BOELCKE not Hartmann as hartmann wasnt even born in ww1 and didnt qualify as fighter pilot till 42

Cruise speed is not combat speed is it cruise speed, if you are using cruise speed in a combat zone then ther will allways have been other critiria (ie escorting slower bombers)

In F1 it is illegal to refuel during a race and has been for a number of seasons, they do have to stop twice but only for tyres (even when refueling was allowed it was optional, however no one missed the chance as carring extra fuel is stupid)

weight does not GIVE anything, you may have more potential energy at any point but you needed to have expended MORE ENERGY to gain that position, you even needed extra fuel just to carry that fuel

you are correct that the LF mkIX did recieve clipped wings but testing at the RAE found that on the MkIX the advantages of the clipped wing was outweighed by its problems (reduction of celing, climb and turn) so few mkIX (<100) were converted and those that were tended to be used in the dive bombing role

well as he only wrote what 4? books on ww2 combat its hardly that much of a jump to guess its in Allied Fighter Aces, the proble with your rotting brain is that you only remember specific parts that support your ideas and not representative of true history, that and the fact that you refuse to do any research to actually support your arguments.

if cl guns were so amazing why did the USAAF remove them from the P40 and P51?

if you have the right gun then cl is best but if you are limited to the browning and HS404 then wings are the only option, in a furball as you call them a spread of firepower is better than a stream

thier was no film as this action was over malta and whilst confirmed at the time no film survived (in fact I dont think any gun camera film survives from that conflict)

 

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/8/2013 8:59:23 PM

Cruise speed is not combat speed Wrongo again! Espesialy early in the war cruise speed was combat speed because it was difficult to change throttle settings from cruise speede what ever it was set at to true combat speed! You could not just open up the throttle and go! First you had to ritchen the mixture, then adjust the prop and finally shove the throttle home! is it cruise speed, if you are using cruise speed No aircraft flys around at "COMBAT speed! Ever It is ONLY selected after contact with the enemy! in a combat zone then ther will allways have been other critiria (ie escorting slower bombers)  Cruise speed has many different deffinitions and you are obviously ignorant of most of them. When they tested the Early and I might add all later Spitfires to determin Maximum Range, they used the speed, mixture, pitch and throttle settings that gave the longest range! This was at that time known as "Cruising Speed"! When durring the BoB, they le3arned that such practices in a combat zone were suicidal, the changed the cruise conditions to some intermidiate throttle possition, but at full rich conditions so that they could shove the throttle home at once with out burning a hole in a piston. Now the had two primary throttle poss settings, the first was about 50-65% when contact was not expected soon, but was possible, and Maximum Continous, OR the 15-30 minute rated power. Again based on the strategic and tactical conditions at the time. SO to make sure everything is perfectly clear, at no time was "Cruise Speed" ever "Combat Speed"!!!!!!!

In F1 it is illegal to refuel during a race Im was wrong! I thought two stops, but for fuel since the have very strict limmits on how many tires you can use during the entire season! 

weight does not GIVE anything, you may have more potential energy at any point but you needed to have expended MORE ENERGY to gain that position, you even needed extra fuel just to carry that fuel All true, but not realivant!you are correct that the LF mkIX did recieve clipped wings but testing at the RAE found that on the MkIX the advantages of the clipped wing was outweighed by its problems (reduction of celing, climb and turn) so few mkIX (<100) were converted and those that were tended to be used in the dive bombing role WOW! Some books state it was less than a thousand?well as he only wrote what 4? IIRC, 6! books on ww2 combat its hardly that much of a jump to guess its in Allied Fighter Aces, the problem with your rotting brain is that you only remember specific parts True! that support your ideas Not true! I remember the important and realivant parts! if cl guns were so amazing why did the USAAF remove them from the P40 and P51? Many reasons, but if wing mounted guns were so good why did they NOT put them in so many planes including most Jets were ingestion of gun gas is detrimental, and even fatal to those types of engines?if you have the right gun then cl is best but if you are limited to the browning Why, the Browning was easy to mount behind a prop and HS404 then wings are the only option, in a furball as you call them a spread of firepower is better than a stream ??? Not at all! Because of the fleeting nature of furball dynamics, you must concentrate as much fire power as possible under the piper to maximize lethality! thier was no film as this action was over malta and whilst confirmed at the time no film survived (in fact I dont think any gun camera film survives from that conflict) Nuts! Too bad! But what can you say about watching the "Golden" BB at work! 


Got lost for an hour while looking for that book which must be in the boxes in the basement.

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/8/2013 9:22:46 PM
Shooter, instead of demanding that others do all the research, how about you start providing some links because so far you have provided nothing substantial to back up your claims. Lets start with the RAFs supposed difficulties of 43 and 44 in Europe. Put up or shut up. Just for starters, from Wiki; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fighter_Command#1942-1945
" target="_blank">link
1942-1945
The difficult task of slowly grinding down the Germans continued into 1942 and 1943. Squadrons also found themselves on tiring defensive patrols as small formations of FW-190s started to fly 'hit and run' nuisance raids all along the South Coast, though Fighter Command's new Hawker Typhoon units proved capable of catching these fighter-bomber interdictions. [citation needed] The most notable offensive battle took place over Dieppe, France... when an ill-fated commando-style raid was mounted there in August 1942 ( Dieppe Raid... ). The Luftwaffe and RAF clashed in the skies over the French city. Although the RAF succeeded in preventing the Luftwaffe from interfering with the shipping, which was its primary aim, its perceived success was misleading. Despite claims at the time that more German aircraft than British had been shot down (106 kills were claimed by the RAF) postwar analysis showed Allied aircraft losses amounted to 106, including 88 RAF fighters and 18 bombers. Of the fighter losses 29 were from flak, one ran out of fuel , two collided, and one was a victim of friendly fire. [3]... Against this, 48 Luftwaffe aircraft were lost. Included in that total were 28 bombers, half of them Dornier Do 217s... from KG 2... . One of the two Jagdgeschwader's , JG 2... , lost 14 Fw 190s and eight pilots killed. JG 26... lost six Fw 190s with their pilots. [4]... Spitfire losses stood at 70 destroyed and damaged to all causes. [5] The Spitfire squadrons (42 with Mark Vs, and four with Mark IXs) were tasked with ground-attack, escort and air-superiority missions, [6]... so the exact number of Spitfire losses to the Fw 190 is unknown. The Luftwaffe claimed 61 of the 106 RAF machines lost, which included all types (JG 2 claimed 40 and JG 26 claimed 21 kills). [4]...
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter       1/8/2013 9:29:07 PM


Shooter, instead of demanding that others do all the research, how about you start providing some links because so far you have provided nothing substantial to back up your claims. Lets start with the RAFs supposed difficulties of 43 and 44 in Europe. Put up or shut up.
Also from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_and_Allied_aircraft_losses_during_Unternehmen_Bodenplatte" target="_blank">link

Werner Girbig in his book, Six Months to Oblivion: The Eclipse of the Luftwaffe Fighter Force, gives German losses, from their sources, as 137 destroyed (98 in the British sector and 39 in the American). Some 57 were shot down by Allied fighters and 80 by Allied AAA defences. Girbig notes a further 48 were lost to unknown causes making a total of around 200 fighters. The rest, the author attributes to German anti-aircraft fire ("flak"). His final total is given as 300. Girbig gives personnel losses as 151 pilots killed and 63 captured.[5] Girbig gives Allied losses as roughly 500, including quoted figures according to Allied sources of 144 destroyed and 84 damaged for the RAF and 134 destroyed and 62 damaged for the USAAF. Girbig asserts 65?75 were shot down in combat.[6]

In recent years other authors have offered more detail on the losses of each side. John Manrho and Ronald Pütz, published their findings in Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe's Last Hope . According to their figures, used from German and Allied sources, which include the remains of German airmen found up until 2003, [7]... German casualties were 271 fighters destroyed, 65 singe engine fighters damaged and 9 twin engine aircraft destroyed, and four damaged. Some 143 pilots were killed in action... , 70 became prisoners of war... and 21 were wounded in action... . [8]... [9]... The Allies lost 305 aircraft destroyed and 190 aircraft damaged. [10]... A further 15 Allied Aircraft were shot down and ten damaged. A further six were downed by other causes. [11]... Manrho and Pütz have also deduced that only 17 German aircraft are certain to have been shot down by German Flak . Even if aircraft with unknown fates are added, it still gives a figure of only 30?35. They state that the notion one?third of the German aircraft were shot down by friendly fire is "myth". [10]... were actually out of date by that time), there was no other fighter available at that time that could get to height in time to do the high altitude intercepts above Darwin, and even the Spits had to flog their engines to do it. 


  
These are the first two that I can find, but rest assured, I'll continue to look until I find my favorite stats.
RAF Claimed ~725 for 428 losses, but post war we find that the Luftwaffe only lost ~106 planes during that 6 month period, for ~450 claims! A roughly 4-1 loss ratio in the German's favor over Northern France in a six month period in 1944! Almost all of them Spitfires!

 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics