"Most Shot Down Aircraft" Topic

Who leads the pack?

IIRC the Soviets lost more aircraft than anyone else. Was going to look this up out of curiosity but I cannot seem to find anything. Googlefu must be weak today.

I would think the 109 in all its marques; the Soviets lost a lot of aircraft, but that was pretty spread out across types.

I guess German or Russian …but maybe Japanese
"Aircraft losses
Finland: Reported losses during the Winter War totaled 67, of which 42 were operational, while 536 aircraft were lost during the Continuation War, of which 209 were operational losses. (Overall 603).[1]
France: From the beginning of the war until the capitulation of France in 1940, 892 aircraft were lost, of which 413 were in action and 234 were on the ground. Losses included 508 fighters and 218 bombers.(Overall 892)[1]
Germany: Estimated total losses for the war totaled 27,875 aircraft, of which 7,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged. By type, losses totaled 4,452 fighters, 2,037 bombers, 5,428 trainers, 1,221 twin-engine fighters, 8,548 ground attack, 3,733 reconnaissance, and 3,141 transports.[1]
Italy: Total losses were 5,272 aircraft, of which 3,269 were lost in combat.
Japan: Estimates vary from 35,000 to 50,000 total losses, with about 20,000 lost operationally.[2]
Netherlands: Total losses were 81 aircraft during the May, 1940 campaign.[2]
Poland: Total losses were 398 destroyed, including 116 fighters, 112 dive bombers, 81 reconnaissance aircraft, 36 bombers, 21 sea planes, and 9 transports.[2]
Soviet Union: Total losses were over 106,400 including 88,300 combat types.[3]
United Kingdom: Total losses in Europe were 22,010, including 10,045 fighters and 11,965 bombers. (This figure does not include aircraft lost in Asia or the Pacific.)[2]
United States: Total losses were nearly 45,000, including 22,951 operational losses (18,418 in Europe and 4,533 in the Pacific).[2]

Would be interesting to time weight those figures… Relatively speaking I suspect the Polish and Dutch figures would be staggering… not to mention the Surrender Monkeys…

I guess it would make a difference if you are looking at PERCENTAGE of the built aircraft type that were destroyed, or are you just wondering what aircraft was shot down the most OVERALL? (which would probably be the one with the most examples built, but maybe not…)

I'd have to echo the suggestion that it was the me109 across all types. 33k built certainly means there were plenty to be shot down.

Next guess would probably be the spitfire.

Mike Target possibly the Spitfire, but I would suggest the Mitsubishi Zero.

The Japanese built around 11,000 Type 0s.

Let's refine the question to which specific aircraft make and model was the most shot down?

Here are the top 10 produced (in reverse order)

Republic P-47 Thunderbolt – 16,231 Units. …
Consolidated B-24 Liberator – 18,482 Units. …
Supermarine Spitfire – 20,351 Units. …
Focke-Wulf Fw 190 – 29,001 Units. …
Messerschmitt Bf 109 – 30,480 Units. …
Yakovlev Yak-3 – 31,000+ Units. …
Ilyushin Il-2 – 36,183 Units.

So I;d guess sturmovik, yak3 or 109?

According to an earlier thread posted by Armand the Sturmovick had approx 12,000 shot down.

I'd go with the 109.

Yakovlev Yak-3 sorry no more than 5000 produced about half post war. Yak series 30+ thousand maybe but even that seems high. Guiness world records has the Bf 109 as mot produced fighter.

Fatman

Sorry batman don't know how that yak crept in, weirdly it's changed on the webpage I copied!

Another prime victim Could be the Po2 perhaps? 20-30k made apparently

To further confuse things, does "shot down" include "destroyed on the ground"? The latter would account for a good chunk of the earlier Soviet stuff, and some of the later German stuff.

Zero or some other Japanese aircraft? No armor, no self-sealing fuel tank. They lite up like a ronson lighter. Other than that it is probably the Sturmovick.

The earlier versions of the Sturmovick did not have a rear gun. So they had a vulnerable six. A newer version was designed with a rear gunner but Stalin did not want to stop the production for a re-tool. Finally he relented.

Remember that the Bf 109 does not have to be shot down, some hundreds crashed on their own, without any Allied help at all.

Approx 5% (about 1,500) Bf109s were written off in landing and take-off accidents. This is mostly because of the absence of a rudder trimmer (a tab on the rudder of most other WW2 combat aircraft) which trims out any torque bias and tendency to swing during take-off and landing. Why Willii Messerschmitt ever left it off is a minor mystery of the war!

Allied pilots such as Bob Stanford-Tuck who test-flew the 109 found it an awkward pig while late-war German pilots described the handling characteristics of the 109G near the ground as 'malicious'.

Despite this the Czechs put the aircraft back into production, after the war, with an oversize (ex-bomber) Junkers Jumo engine and produced the Avia version of the 109. This was so poor that the ex-RAF Czech pilots who had just come off flying Spitfire IXs called the Avia 109 'the mule'… which just about sums it up.

I remember discussions on the Axis and Allied forums where various members were saying that the 109 would have been a 'superb carrier aircraft' for the Germans. No… even the Spitfire failed in that regard, the Seafire was regarded as too fragile – not robust enough for rough carrier landings. The 109 would have had the same unstable narrow-track under carriage as the Spit, the same general fragility AND the absence of a rudder trimmer. It would have been a nightmare given that carrier aircraft inevitably have more take-off and landing accidents than land-based aircraft.

Add to which most tarmac runways don't jump up and down five or ten feet in an Atlantic or Pacific swell – and tarmac runways are significantly longer than four or five aircraft carrier flight decks! :)

Barry