sopwith camel kill/loss ratio

I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were credited to
Sopwith Camels in WWI.

However, there is a statistic that approximately 1400 hundred pilots were
killed in action with the Camel, not including the 385 that died in
non-combat crashes.

Was this considered a successful kill/loss ratio for allied fighters (not
including the non-operational losses)?

This ratio would hardly show the Camel as a dominant fighter, course, I
don't know if the Camel had extensive losses to ground fire.


Al

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...
I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were credited to
Sopwith Camels in WWI.

However, there is a statistic that approximately 1400 hundred pilots were
killed in action with the Camel, not including the 385 that died in
non-combat crashes.

Was this considered a successful kill/loss ratio for allied fighters (not
including the non-operational losses)?


It depends on what point in the war you are speaking of.

This ratio would hardly show the Camel as a dominant fighter, course, I
don't know if the Camel had extensive losses to ground fire.


It did since they were used heavily in the ground attack
role carrying 4 20lb bombs under the wings at the battles
of Ypres and Cambrai as well as the German offensive of 1918.

Indeed an armoured prototype developed into the Sopwith Salamander.

Keith

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...
I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were credited to
Sopwith Camels in WWI.

However, there is a statistic that approximately 1400 hundred pilots were
killed in action with the Camel, not including the 385 that died in
non-combat crashes.

Was this considered a successful kill/loss ratio for allied fighters (not
including the non-operational losses)?


It depends on what point in the war you are speaking of.

This ratio would hardly show the Camel as a dominant fighter, course, I
don't know if the Camel had extensive losses to ground fire.


It did since they were used heavily in the ground attack
role carrying 4 20lb bombs under the wings at the battles
of Ypres and Cambrai as well as the German offensive of 1918.

Indeed an armoured prototype developed into the Sopwith Salamander.

Is it not also fair to say that the Allies used their aircraft more
aggressively than the Central Powers, ranging routinely beyond their
FLOT and exposing them to ground fire?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message ...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"old hoodoo" wrote in message\

I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were
credited to
Sopwith Camels in WWI.



Ven ve were over Normandy on D-Day, ve didn't see one, not one ,Sopwith
Camel!!!

Keith Willshaw wrote:
Indeed an armoured prototype developed into the Sopwith Salamander.


Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs, Lightnings or
Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

: Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs,
: Lightnings or Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?

If the war had lasted longer, RAF pilots would have had the
opportunity of going to war in the Sopwith Snail...

Emmanuel

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

Keith Willshaw wrote:
Indeed an armoured prototype developed into the Sopwith Salamander.

Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs, Lightnings or
Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?

Haven't you heard? Salamanders live in fire.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...
I just noticed that approximately 1300 German Aircraft were credited
to
Sopwith Camels in WWI.

However, there is a statistic that approximately 1400 hundred pilots
were
killed in action with the Camel, not including the 385 that died in
non-combat crashes.

Was this considered a successful kill/loss ratio for allied fighters
(not
including the non-operational losses)?


It depends on what point in the war you are speaking of.

This ratio would hardly show the Camel as a dominant fighter, course,
I
don't know if the Camel had extensive losses to ground fire.


It did since they were used heavily in the ground attack
role carrying 4 20lb bombs under the wings at the battles
of Ypres and Cambrai as well as the German offensive of 1918.

Indeed an armoured prototype developed into the Sopwith Salamander.

Is it not also fair to say that the Allies used their aircraft more
aggressively than the Central Powers, ranging routinely beyond their
FLOT and exposing them to ground fire?

Absolutely, aggressive patrolling beyond the front lines
was very much the norm

Keith

Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:
Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs,
Lightnings or Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?

If the war had lasted longer, RAF pilots would have had the
opportunity of going to war in the Sopwith Snail...


I guess it was too slow in coming?


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

In article , Mortimer
Schnerd, RN writes
Now that's a manly sounding steed. Who needs Devastators, Havocs, Lightnings
or
Thunderbolts when you can fly the dreaded Salamander?

Could be worse, could be a Cuckoo!

My only source reports claims for nearly 3,000 kills?

--
John