Kill Ratio

[Ron_F]

<>I can understand Camel pilots getting killed in combat,
>but for a se5a or spad to get shot down, they had to get
>surprised me thinks. >

to add to this, using MvRs victory listing, 5 spad 7s and 3 Se5as were caught in his sights. probably in his Albatros and Dr1s.

so, knowing MvR he caught them unawares without looking up any reference to the fights. tho, i do remember ( i think) some spads that saw them and mixed it up and lost...

the cruising speed/throttle setting cam mentioned does come to mind, but i dont know if the inlines could run full out constantly or not. might still have the same problems as their ww2 counterparts...
i just dont remember reading that they flew at a certain throttle setting, unless they went to engage. which would have been full throttle then....
fwiw,
Ron

Hi Ron,

>i just dont remember reading that they flew at
>a certain throttle setting, unless they went
>to engage. which would have been full throttle
>then....

Didnt this threads namesake ( Killratio ) and Ira discuss the cruise speed and cruising throttle settings of the SE5a? IIRC they came to the conclusion that 80% throttle was 75% power. ???? Anyone got figures on that.

What revs did the inlines run at? and how long till overheating became a problem???




cam
AFC - http://members.nbci.com/pointcook/

[Billy_Bishop]

Ok, mixing types probably has some benefit, not only at certain levels. As far as I've been able to determine, the Germans in WWI mixed them at EVERY level, including the Flight level. THIS has to be a mistake.

The allies in WWII and the Germans in WWII did mix them at group level, but no lower, as far as I know. And I think mixing them at lower than group level leaves room for too many BAD possibilities.

But that is just my opinion.

VBR,

Al Lowe

<Al> Why are you comparing WWOne too two.

Aviation was at its infancy in WWI the same cannot be said about WWtwo. Did Herman Georing make some of the mistakes in WWII as were made in WWI.....simple put yes (and he made them in flying color). That does not imply that strategies in employed WWI would hold true in WWII(everything is relative to the circumstances at hand). I am simply stating that by mixing planes the squad CO's were able to maximize their squads effectiveness given what was available. For example would you send out 3 P3's on a recon escort...no. Send out one P3 with an alb and a DRI. Similarly for other missions. If you don't mix then you would send out the P3s on one flight all your DRI's on another, etc. What is the better divion of resourses for max utility.

I do think you are correct about WWII and mixing strategies though.....as aviation moves forward mixing makes less sense with each passage of time and with advances in aviation and military hardware. So in conclusion what I am stating is that mixing makes sense in a WWI setting/context but not in future contexts. You should not try to extrapolate history in a reverse direction. What might be true today cannot be said about yesterday.

[Ron_F]

cam,
wish i could remember that thread.

inlines 'usually' were at 1400-1600rpms or so.

in the smithonian book onthe albatros, 1500rpms was for takeoff, and 1400 or less was for cruise. thats 93% of the max revs.

hopefully someone has these figures.

Ron

There are certainly valid logistical reasons for not mixing aircraft types at the squadron level. Having a single type means that your ground crew develop expertise within that type; able to most efficiently service, repair, rig and fit for that aircraft and its engine. They can share their expertise and become better and better over time. Mixing types requires a vastly increased supply of spare parts and dilutes the skills of the staff responsible for their maintenance, IMHO.

[Billy_Bishop]

John, I'm not COMPARING them, simply using WWII as an example of mixing of aircraft types within a certain command level.

As to what <font size="4">I</font> would send out on recon escourt duty, it would depend on the desired altitude of the recon, and whether I had appropriate aircraft for that level. Otherwise, I'd do what most Jasta commanders probably did, and send whatever I had available. In general, I wouldn't mix types if I could avoid it. Unless I had enough to do it in pairs. And preferably in flights.

My personal opinion is that mixing types at levels lower than Group(Wing in modern structure) is undesirable, and mixing at Squadron level is VERY undesirable. Mixing at flight level is just plain stupid. Unless you're doing so because that is what you have available.

Again, this is just <font size="4">MY</font> opinion. 8-)

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Soderbaum]

Hi

Here is how the German Army Air Force kill ratio developed on monthly basis.
The figures is based on KoGenLuft reports, except * which are from monthly reports..
It is total victories/losses but it is possible to break down partly in air combat(problem with missing aircrafts)

Jan 1917 1,61*
Feb 1917 3,79*
Mar 1917 3,57
Apr 1917 4,89
May 1917 3,35
Jun 1917 3,79
Jul 1917 3,93
Aug 1917 4,95
Sep 1917 4,84*
Okt 1917 3,64*
Nov 1917 3,7
Dec 1917 1,45

Jan 1918 2,57
Feb 1918 2,30
Mar 1918 2,25
Apr 1918 2,37
May 1918 2,34
Jun 1918 3,12
Jul 1918 4,01*
Aug 1918 4,04
Sep 1918 7,16


Gunnar

There have been several instances where superior aircraft did not produce a superior kill ratio; Zero/F4F,Mig15/F-86 come to mind. And the early IJN pilots were no slouches. Also we tend to think of aircraft performance in rigid numbers. I wonder if any 2 of the same model performed equally-fresh from the factory, especially with all the subcontracting that went on. And there must have been a big difference between a new machine and one that had seen action-even a few weeks(those that survived). Just my 2cents.

[Craig]

Please clarify. Does "1,61" mean "one loss for 61 kills" (unbelievable) or 1.61 kills per loss? Or perhaps something altogether different?