Table of kill ratios

Grumman F6F Hellcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia gives kill ratios based on claims against all Japanese opponents, but most other articles about fighter aircraft lack such numbers. I was searching for a table of kill ratios between different fighter aircraft, but so far failed to find any. (Of course, based on claims and confirmations of both sides and evidence available, there should rather be a frame of ratios than a specific ratio between two aircraft.) In special, I'd like to know the kill ratios of P-51 Mustangs against Bf 109 and Fw 190. Does anybody have information on that?

 

I'm not making a complete endorsement of this site, but it does offer some very interesting reading and comparing of different planes from different nations during the Second World War.

During World War II, Mustang pilots claimed 4,950 enemy aircraft shot down, second only to the Grumman F6F Hellcat among Allied aircraft.

And then here is another interesting portion I just picked for fun. You can also find the Corsair and others on this site as well.

The Grumman F4F Wildcat was an American carrier-based fighter aircraft that began service with both the United States Navy and the British Royal Navy (as the Martlet) in 1940. First used in combat by the British in Europe, the Wildcat was the only effective fighter available to the United States Navy and Marine Corps in the Pacific Theater during the early part of World War II in 1941 and 1942. (Although the Brewster Buffalo was the Navy's first monoplane fighter, it proved disappointing in combat. It was withdrawn very early in the war and replaced by Wildcats as they became available.) With a top speed of 318 mph (512 km/h), the Wildcat was outperformed by the faster and more nimble 331 mph (533 km/h) Mitsubishi A6M Zero, but its ruggedness, coupled with tactics such as the Thach Weave, resulted in an air combat kill-to-loss ratio of 5.9:1 in 1942 and 6.9:1 for the entire war.

Goto:

Luftwaffe Resource Center - Main Index - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

 

I believe the 4,950 figure is for the P-51 is ETO/MTO only. I need to find my notes, but I believe with PTO claims the P-51 had more kills than the F6F.

 

Really, to do a worthwhile assessment, one should have a kill ratio table laid out by month or quarter. Otherwise you have an unfair comparison. The Hellcat's kill ratio benefited greatly from the Wildcat pilots before that honed the tactics used by later aircraft, for example. Since the Japanese tended to keep their best pilots in the fight, the later fighters also benefited from a "lower quality" opponent. Looking at the war in totality gives a false assessment.

 

Brace yourself for THE MOST LETHAL fighter of WW2:


View attachment 16579



Or can someone, anyone beat a claims to losses ratio of 32:1? ... No? No surprise!

 

Yupper, but that was the Brewster without all the USN required armor and crap. Even "Pappy" Boyington loved the prototype he flew, called the Brewster a sports car and the Grumann a "truck".

 

That IS the real thing. A Brewster Model 239 albeit in the colors of it's former owners, who called her F2A-1. *sncr*

 

Sorry, didn't enlarge your attachment. But the 239 was the one the Finns used to establish that wonderful record, not the Buffalo used by the rest in full "battle trim" which was a real dog. That was my point, the original design (239) was a wonderful handling unit and the Finns proved it was superb in the right hands. When loaded up with armor and such it wasn't too good at all.

 

I had read the Finnish claims before. The Finns thought so much of this fighter ( who called this plane the "Sky Pearl") they tooled up to produce their own version of it.

 

Yes, remember original readings recounting how poor the Buffalo was, but now wonder if it was mishandled/used. It was an early era plane. So was the Zero...Maybe the Buffalo too could have evolved if there weren't so many other newer promising craft available.

 

Poppy,

The Buffalo didn't evolve, it devolved.

The F2A-1 probably could have handled the A6M2, however the USN only got 11 of the -1s, and exported the rest to Finland. Instead, the powers that be in the USN wanted more armor, self-sealing tanks, more range, etc. and all these things added weight to the aircraft. While the 950hp engine of the -1 was more than plenty, the 1,200hp engine of the -3 was just not up to the task of lugging all the additional weight. Thus, the Brewster went from being a falcon with the F2A-1, to being a Dodo by the F2A-3.

For a lot of reading on the Brewster go here: Annals of the Brewster Buffalo

 

Devolved is one way of putting it, but it was an airframe overstretched by things required in the Pacific Theater. Longer range, was required in those vast stretches, once carriers became the true capital ships of the Pacific. Other wise, carrier based zeros, could sit comfortably out of range.

I get what your saying, but I believe the Pz IV with the long 75 could have been a war winning tank, but turret ring size, drive train, power to weight, although constrained its evolution.

Calling the Buffalo the most lethal aircraft, because of a 32:1 kill ratio, early in its life, is like calling the British Hart the best dive bomber, because when introduced, as a biplane bomber, it was faster than most fighters. One thing that distinguished and I think largely contributed to the air war was the allies willingness to produce new types, and types that were easy to upgrade and improve, while the Bf-109 and Zero soldiered on, well past their sell by dates.

Even a “clean” Buffalo, by late 1942 would have been a death trap. “Clean”, no armor, originally only 4 Browning .50, no legs.

Wildcats and Hellcats might have been “trucks” by comparison, and the P-47 a locomotive, but none of those original “uncluttered” Buffaloes would have stood a chance. And calling armor for the pilot a “burdening down” of the aircraft reflects in iIn adequacy to adapt, because of its original design, to the necessities of war, like the Pz IV.

I originally came here trying to find a table of kill ratios of all WW2 fighters, by year, and theater, for a project I am working on in my old age. But have found some of the dialog interesting.

Here is another piece of my project, for your amusement.

 

Your Mustang score is shy all of the PTO Claims and should be about 1000 EA higher. On the other hand, the F6F numbers are all from the PTO and thus making it our third deadliest plane at A2A destruction!
The Brewster Buffalo was not flown well by Americans during the War, but the Finns did very well with them having a positive K/L Ratio out of all proportion to it's "Placard Stats".
The Me-109 was far and away the single most effective Fighter Plane of WW-II with over 45,000 EA to it's credit! The next ~5-6 types combined do not approach this number!

 

Which US WWII fighter shot down the most enemy aircraft?
Among single engine planes;

5,944 P-51/A-36/F-6
5,229 F6F
3,785 P-38
3,662 P-47
2,155 F4U
1,944 P-40

 

It's hard to tell if you are being deliberately misleading or at just ignorant of the facts. The Buffalo that the Finns flew was not the same plane flown in combat by US pilots. Furthermore the opposition both pilots and planes was considerably different.

You keep saying this but that does noting to improve it's veracity. The Germans and the Me-109 in particular lost the air war over Germany in 43. Hardly what one would expect of the "most effective fighter plane of WWII". There's also the question of just what the 45,000 EA really means. For instance Germans at least in some areas and times were credited by engine from what I recall reading. Thus a B-17 or a B-24 counted as 4 not 1 kills.

 

The Brewster Buffalo was not flown well by Americans during the War, but the Finns did very well with them having a positive K/L Ratio out of all proportion to it's "Placard Stats".


No mention of the Australians either..."Buffalo activities in Australia were limited, but in Malaya the Buffalo pilots of Nos 21 and 453 Squadrons left behind a record of heroism and sacrifice rarely surpassed in RAAF history."

 

And how much do they correct for naval aircraft losses due to the loss of their carriers, like in Midway, compared with actual losses in combat?

 

Apples and oranges. Aircraft lost aboard a carrier, sinking, combat damage, storm damage, operational damage, doesn't matter, they are are not shot down, therefore no correction is necessary. If you think that such might be an important statistic, then one would suppose it would be necessary to also adjust for planes lost in operational accidents, destroyed on the ground by enemy action, or simply took off from this that or the other air base and no one ever saw them again from all, allied and axis . . . and then we can count all the axis planes destroyed at the end of the war on orders from the Allies . . . . where would the counting stop?

If one is serious about USN operational statistics then a look at Naval Aviation Combat Statistic World War II; just be careful, a small number of columns, rows, and formula have incorrect sums/calculations - typos I suspect, best to copy/paste everything to spread sheets and recalculate everything. You can download here
https://www.history.navy.mil/resear...t/world-war-ii/naval-aviation-statistics.html

 

I would think they'd be important. Take the case of Midway. The Japanese lost almost 300 aircraft, of which 219 must have been lost when the carriers were sunk (at least according to one article https://www.immf-midway.com/docs/losses.pdf. ) Now if we're talking about fighter plane kill ratio, then losses due to bomber action should be discounted.