Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[w]

Is there any objective, professional report, chart, static chart that would show the actual *combat out comes for
the following types of aircraft comparisons: example only--
======================================================================================
Bf 109 E 3-7 class vs I-16 1940-41,. Hurricane Mk1 39-40 etc
Bf 109 E 4-7class vs Mig 3 1940-41
Bf 109 F2 class vs Mig 3 1941-42
Bf 109 G2-6 class vs Mig 3, LaGG 41-43
F4F- Wildcat vs A6m2 Zeke 1941
F6F Hell Cat vs A6m2 Zeke 1941-42


how many were deployed for each opposing force and what thew ratio was IE ( 2.5 I-16's were shot down for every 1 Bf-109 shot down)
I know this has no factoring for pilot skill, and as we know a good pilot, could shoot down a Zero in a Wildcat, but this was not the usual outcome.

[HundertzehnGustav]

i think such reports... IF they exist, wich i doubt... are worth asswipe.
-the absolute truth is not known. records are missing
-the different fractions had different standards, different definitions of "shot down"
-records are full of human errors, propaganda and other Factors that do not permit the establishment of such a document.

basically, what you are looking for is the complete losses of the IInd world war, wrapped up in one file, accurate and neat?
what do you call "deployed"... does that include machines fresh from the factory or also Machines repaired in the shops and RE-deployed? What about machines deployed by the Russians, captured by the Finns and used again? how do these fit in the stats?
do you wish to include exotic prototypes that were used in combat?

Woah, man... thats a lot of info you are hunting there...

[w]

well , my reason for asking is there are books, movies, Wikipedia factoids,  rumors, myths,
pronouncements by the online sacred cows of WW2 aviation etc that we all have been subjected to
-- unchallenged statements like -

"The Spitfire won the battle of Brittan b/c the Bf-109 was inferior" - Winston Churchill talking to Roosevelt.

The "documentary" series The World at War that exclaims "in 1940 everything the French could fly and the British Hurricanes
 were shot out of the sky like balsa wood models by the German 109"

the History Channels "Wings of The Luftwaffe" said of the opening days of Barbarossa:
 
"all manner and aptitude of Soviet aircraft were thrown into the battle from day one, and like the
aircraft of France and the Low Lands German fighter pilots were fighting amongst them selves on the ground
accusing one another of not saving any planes for the green pilots to shoot down" ,

and this one :  "German pilots would fire 3 to 5 round busts into Soviet aircraft, and back off , to see just how few round of ammo could in fact bring down Soviet
aircraft" - clearly they were not shooting at an IL2 of any production variant.

or this one "Alarmed at the overwhelming superiority of the new Fw 190 over the Spitfire....British fighter command immediately began preparations
 to bomb the Fw production facilities and attempt to improve the Spitfire"

Like they ( the British aircraft designers) wouldn't have made improvements to the Spitfire if the Fw 190 had not have showed up?
I mean really - how do you dispel these myths and rumors?
 

[Moggy Cattermole]

It's the sort of things dissertations and research projects are based on. It'd take a lot of leg work, and you'd need to look at various accepted losses on both sides - the official ones - versus the claims of each pilot and accounts of battles to work out who shot down what where. Most sweeping statements were based upon expirience of pilots and not the empirical evidence of actual kills vs losses. That hurris are remembered as being inferior to the me109 is based on the expiriences of either side, not the actual kill ratios. I don't think it's feasible given the records kept at the time and the likelyhood of their complete survival to get a kill ratio. And honestly I don't think it would add much since it would broadly agree with what the pilots were saying. They'd know, after all. An interesting thought though.

[w]

Forget WW2 what a bout "on line"  IL2 Game play.

poll a guy who likes to drive the I-16, or Mig 3 when fighting the Bf-190 both of equal year of production, which would you rather fly in and why?
then compare the actual online results against the myths and assertions of WW2 lore.

[Pursuivant]

It's the sort of things dissertations and research projects are based on. It'd take a lot of leg work, and you'd need to look at various accepted losses on both sides - the official ones - versus the claims of each pilot and accounts of battles to work out who shot down what where.

This assumes that official records survived the war to be analyzed. In some cases, though, the sort of work that Moggy mentions has been done. Not so much to demonstrate the superiority of any particular plane type, as to get a sense of overall kill ratios by unit.

Even if you were to get nice, tidy data on who shot down who where, you'd need to dig even deeper into the archives to determine important things like pilot quality, pilot fatigue, pilot morale, number of aircraft involved in each engagement, mission type, fuel status, altitude and distance from base. For example, the Bf-109K was, in terms of speed and armament, the peak of development for the Bf-109 series. In the hands of a skilled pilot, it's a formidable foe. Yet if you were to try to determine the kill ratio of the P-51D vs. the Bf-109K, you'd get a false impression of the merits of the Bf-109K, because by the time the Kurfurst series entered service, the Allies had complete air superiority, meaning most German pilots were poorly trained and were fighting against terrible odds.

[Pursuivant]

Poll a guy who likes to drive the I-16, or Mig 3 when fighting the Bf-190 both of equal year of production, which would you rather fly in and why?
then compare the actual online results against the myths and assertions of WW2 lore.

That's one way to do it, but it seems like an open invitation to endless rounds of "chart wars."

I determine the relative merits of various planes by setting up flights of Veteran or Ace planes at various altitudes in the QMB, putting my aircraft on autopilot and sitting back to watch the carnage. Regardless of what the historical facts were, that gives you a decent sense of what IL2 thinks is the better plane in a dogfight.

[Moggy Cattermole]

Agreed pursuivant, but not enough has been done to make full fair aircraft vs aircraft comparisons.

[tater718]

I also do what Pursuivant does.I'm a 100% offline guy but I have a pertty good idea what planes are better than others.Of course,the possible combinations are staggering so I don't fool with the "also rans" very much.Unfortunatly the AI is a cold,calculating machine so once he decides to do something,that's all he does.He will pass up an easy snap shot in order to gain some sort of situational advantage.Most of the time I just fly on autopilot so as not to throw in another variable.All AC meet at the same altitude at the same time at the same waypoint.
Give it a try!

[w]

The AI does weight planes differently - AI cheating seems reduced since - lets say 4.07m,
 but still I see AI  I-16s and Migs display vertical climb rates at 15,000 feet comparable to a  F8F Bear cat at 5,0000
and P-51 B's & C's darting around at 20,000 feet like Me 262's  WTF
but all are correct, this topic can be sooooo subjective and subject to too many " but what ifs ", or "only" , etc

[DD_BadAim]

There actually are such studies, but how objective they are is another question. One has to read extensively and carefully to really gain an impression of how these things worked. The good news is those of us who have usually find great gems amongst  the drivel. One of the great unsung books on the European theater is "Strategy for Defeat the Luftwaffe 1933-1945" (at least in my opinion). It concisely lays out (from the German perspective) how the Allies slowly ground the Luftwaffe down throughout the war and why, and best of all it is now free; http://ebookee.org/Strategy-for-Defeat-the-Luftwaffe-1933-1945_288063.html. One of my favorite books on the Pacific theater Is "Fire in the Sky" by Eric Bergerud which tells the story of how the finest naval air service the world had ever seen was broken by a bunch of inexperienced kids from America's heartland along with their equally inexperienced counterparts from Australia and New Zealand in marginally acceptable aircraft, well before the Corsair and the Hellcat came along.

In short, it's not always about numbers, but often it's about something intangible like the spirit of the half dozen pilots that can stand up out of an entire squadron fighting over the three planes that the mechanics can manage to keep serviceable even though the whole lot of them are puking and crapping all over the place. (or perhaps freezing half to death a half a world away).

You can't just throw numbers at this thing and expect to understand it, but if you study the numbers long enough, and lives of the brave soldiers (on all sides) that those numbers represent, you might just begin to get a feel for what happened so many years ago.

[Verhängnis]

Kill Ratio's do exist for Me-262's and Me-163's against B-17's. But it may be hard to find for aircraft of which thousands of claims were made, some even false, if one could find the data, there is a chance it is quite innacurate, considering accidents etc.