Statistical Report Comment Form P&Sp-6010 You May: Fill & Download for Free

So I did a bunch of digging. I noticed someone mentioned this same source, but I’ll provide it for the sake of having it accessible in this post: Horrific WWII StatisticsI found a statistical breakdown of US air losses in the European Air Theatre located here: 8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS PowersSo now a lot of people will probably say a variety of Soviet planes and Western bombers are the most likely culprits for “Largest casualties” -in terms of how many were destroyed in combat, but the numbers in the 8th AF Losses charts actually surprised me.Of course, I wouldn’t say any of these numbers are EXACT, but the totals are generally around what was listed.Here are some ref photos for planes that suffered particularly high casualties throughout the war. I’ll also be adding in estimated percentages (%) -of planes shot down/destroyed while their engines were running out of the total amount manufactured.Here’s B-24:-Over 18,000 B-24s were produced overall.Around 2,112 (estimated) B-24s were lost over Europe for the 8th AF. I can’t find any reputable sources for losses of the B-24 in the Pacific, but they’re not nearly as large just because the plane wasn’t used as widely against the Japanese. I also can’t find any RAF or other Commonwealth totals for B-24s lost. I’m only finding some sources listing the number of RAF Liberators as a few hundred, (200 in 1941, according to Wikipedia).For the sake of estimating, let’s say that including 15th AF losses, losses in the Pacific, and Commonwealth Liberator losses, this jacks the total number of planes physically shot down to around 2,500 B-24s.Here’s the B-17:-Over 12,700 were built.Around 4,754 B-17s were lost over Europe for the 8th Air Force. I can’t find many sources listing B-17 losses to the Japanese, or planes lost in RAF and Commonwealth colors. For an estimate, let’s say that including losses from Commonwealth air forces, losses for the 15th Air Force, and losses in the Pacific, the number jacks up to around 5,000.There were also over 15,000 P-51 Mustangs built of all types. Around 2,201 American 8th Air Force P-51 Mustangs were lost-You could round in some extra losses to account for any Commonwealth Mustangs that were shot down and losses for the 15th and 9th Air Forces. Commonwealth Mustangs did not suffer anywhere near as significant losses to enemy fire as American Mustangs did, and the 15th Air Force only took perhaps around just above a quarter of the losses the 8th took. So all in all if you guestimate/round up, you might end up with around 2,500 P-51s lost total to all forms of fire.-Over 15,500 P-47s of all types were manufactured. About 1,023 American P-47 Thunderbolts were lost via 8th AF casualties. Also, around 3,500 P-47s were lost to ALL causes by the end of the war, so if you add in 15th and 9th AF’s losses, you might end up with close to around 1,200 P-47s physically shot down from the air.A lot of online estimates say that P-51s only shot down around 4–5,000 German planes. I’m here to tell you based on my extensive reading and research about the subject since I was a child, that those losses ARE NOT CORRECT.P-51s easily shot down over 10,000 planes by the end of the war.Somebody has to explain where all of those German planes went at the end of hostilities. If you follow some less-informed estimates that only 15,000 to 20,000 German fighters were shot down by the end, you’re still left with over 30,000 to nearly 40,000 airframes that are literally being said to have vanished into thin air.A classic excuse revisionists will make is that the Luftwaffe of course was not shot down en masse, but mass crashed itself, because obviously, that’s a logical approach to the subject.Yeah. 🙄One must remember that the Luftwaffe was completely annihilated. To say otherwise is an exercise in alternate history. The Germans indeed did run out of pilots faster, but were replacing those pilots with green, inexperienced recruits to put in the planes left. I’ve actually had people challenge me on this to say that the Germans “Ran out of pilots, not planes” -which is fascinatingly ignorant, because basically what you’re reasoning with me is that the Germans had all of these airframes just sitting around, and they refused to use them because they “Had nobody left to fly them” -.Outlandish. Laughably outlandish. The Germans suffered the attrition they did BECAUSE they had no skilled pilots left. The thinking was to put the planes in the air, in the stead of just leaving them on the ground for Allied planes to destroy, so that at least even if the destruction of the German plane and pilot was inevitable, they would at least have a chance to bring an enemy plane or tank down with them. The way some people process that reality is frightening, to me anyway.Regardless, P-51s shot down around 10,000 German planes of various type (if you count the P-51’s K/D ratio pf 11–10/1, the number could potentially go up to 22,000, but it’s my personal opinion the number orbits around 13–15,000). Thunderbolts had a K/D of 7–1 so around 6–7–8,000 German planes downed for them.The Mustang and Thunderbolt primarily engaged in air combat with Me-109s and Fw-190s, which are the two planes I’ll focus on for Germany’s king of total losses purely because there were more of them than anything else overall. Losses for German fighters are much harder to find, yet are doubtless in that they were beyond horrendous:-Around 31,000 Me-109s were produced:-29,000 Fw-190s were produced, including long-nose variants:-The minutely specific loss numbers for German planes are staggeringly hard/almost impossible to determine. Wikipedia is unreliable, and the website does a staggeringly unsubtle job of this by allowing “Authors” -to directly quote German war records with no other sources.All countries overclaimed kills, but the Germans have been proven to have done so as a morale tactic with their tanks:: German Tank Kill Claims -Not everyone will agree with this, but I’m not here to cater.I did find a website listing the total Fw-190s that were captured at the end of the war as only a few tens, including over 65 more manufactured for French postwar use and a small amount manufactured by and for the Turks. It isn’t a high number at all: Non-Luftwaffe Focke-Wulf 190sNot many German aircraft, but particularly Fw-190s survived the end of the war. Assuming that the number of captured Fw-190s is only around (including the numbers on the above list) -100–200? Maybe if you want to be extremely generous, you could argue 1,000 were captured total on all fronts? That number is bloated, but for the purpose of the listing, we’ll keep it.That assumes around 28,000 aircraft are still unaccounted for. Now, you can be generous with that number as well and say that HALF of all destroyed Fw-190s were destroyed on the ground and in accidents/mechanical failures, but even then, that leaves around 15–16,000 Folke Wulfs destroyed in combat while airborne, most in the West.To further disprove some myth-tellers, here is a chart depicting the reality for Luftwaffe fighters and pilots:-The Americans and the Commonwealth were shooting down German pilots faster than they could crash their own planes. By the end of the war, 51% of all Luftwaffe pilots to have EVER SERVED, ended up dead. That number comes before wounded, captured, and missing. Luftwaffe pilots did not have “Combat Tours” -they were by and large butchered. This is undeniable. These records also I will stress are incomplete. The Germans could not have accurately tallied up every single plane lost to combat causes. Thusly, all shoot-down numbers here are quite large and will go over the total listed destroyed planes to all causes. That’s my point of view, and you’re free to write your own report disagreeing with that.So, just to take a break, here are the numbers so far for planes shot down in combat through air-to-air dogfights and flak and friendly fire:B-17: 5,000 (40%)B-24: 2,500 (14%)P-47: 1,200 (8%)P-51: 2,500 (16%)FW-190: 16,000 (55%)-Now for the Me-109, around 30–31,000 were manufactured throughout the war. So there’s only around 67 Me109 airframes still in existence (though this number has been brought to my attention by some readers as questionable, and honestly I would be tempted to agree, because many of these examples are probably Czech and Spanish manufactured derivatives that came after WW2).Regardless, let’s say for the argument of this answer that a similar or slightly higher number of Me’s were captured at the end of the war like the Fw-190. Again, still keeping in mind the reality that the Luftwaffe was literally left with NOTHING at the end of the war, so this number is undoubtedly bloated.If slightly more Me-109’s were captured at the end, that would be around 300–400. Estimated, you could be extremely generous and say that over 2,000 were captured intact at the end of the war. We’ll just double the assumed number of Fw-190s because the Me-109 was in higher use, and more German units were equipped with them and usually for longer.If 2,000 Me-109s survived WW2 not getting destroyed during flight or on the ground, that still leaves anywhere from 28–29,000 unaccounted planes, and if you take away HALF of that number as being destroyed on the ground, in accidents and mechanical mishaps, you’re left with 14–15,000 total, which would have to mean they were destroyed during the fighting. Now, more Me-109s were shot down than Fw-190s, which would make that number impractical even for guestimation purposes. So let’s say that overall 18,000 Me-109s were shot down in combat.So here’s an updated list:B-17: 5,000 (40%)B-24: 2,500 (14%)P-47: 1,200 (8%)P-51: 2,500 (16%)FW-190: 16,000 (55%)ME-109: 18,000 (60%)-Assuming these numbers are all close to accurate, that means that German fighters account for a huge number of machines destroyed in the air overall. Again, because the Luftwaffe was essentially vaporized. Here’s a beautiful and prolonged report detailing exactly how badly the Luftwaffe was trampled: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945Now, you can also start counting Japanese planes. The two most-produced are the Mitsubishi A6M-Zeke “Zero” :-of which around 10,440 were built.The next is the Nakajima Ki-43 “Oscar”:-of which around 5,920 were built.For number crunching, again, it’s next to impossible to find solid numbers of Japanese planes shot down because of the chaos the Axis countries were thrown into at the end of the war, and baked records.Now for the Zero, losses were utterly horrific in comparison to the amount made. Only around 10 Zeros are still alive today. I can’t find any numbers of Zeros captured from Japanese service by American or Commonwealth ground forces.If you want to be generous, you can say that maybe overall, including all Japanese island airfields and facilities captured on major islands like Okinawa, MAYBE around 500–600 Zeros overall were captured intact by the Allies, you can also just to be safe, bloat that number to 1,000 captured just for the sake of trying to be even with the Germans.This number is almost certainly too high, as the Zero was almost rendered extinct just because of the sheer loss ratio they suffered.That still leaves over 9,000 A6M Zeroes unaccounted, thus lost during operation, with maybe we’ll say 4,000 of those machines lost on the ground and in accidents and mechanical mishaps, which leaves around 5,000 destroyed in the air. To clarify, I am counting Kamikaze planes that successfully impacted their targets as “Shot Down” -because technically they were destroyed during a moment of flight operation.So here’s an updated list:B-17: 5,000 (40%)B-24: 2,500 (14%)P-47: 1,200 (8%)P-51: 2,500 (16%)FW-190: 16,000 (55%)ME-109: 18,000 (60%)A6M: 5,000 (49%)-Now for the Nakajima Ki-43, I don’t like relying on Wikipedia because it’s unreliable, but it’s the only space I can find records of planes still in existence. Wikipedia: Nakajima Ki-43 - Wikipedia -says around 7 Ki-43s are still around.Very few of the Ki-43 must have been captured by Allied forces up until the end of the war. Let’s be really generous with the Ki-43 and say that 5–600 of them survived the war intact having not been shot down during flight time. That still leaves a minimum of 5,400 Ki-43s shot down during operational use, and let’s say out of those, maybe 2,000 were destroyed on the ground and in accidents/mishaps, that leaves a minimum of 3,400 machines destroyed during flight time.B-17: 5,000 (40%)B-24: 2,500 (14%)P-47: 1,200 (8%)P-51: 2,500 (16%)FW-190: 16,000 (55%)ME-109: 18,000 (60%)A6M: 5,000 (49%)KI-43: 3,500 (59%)Edit: Let me add in some more German planes just to give you a bigger picture.The Ju-87:-Around 6,000 were built.Ju-87 losses are… difficult to ascertain. I’m being lighthearted with that description XD.German bomber losses during the Battle of Britain were horrendous. Losses suffered by Ju-87s and Me-110s effectively spooked the Luftwaffe into never relying on either of those designs as unsupported day interceptors ever again. The Germans lost around 1,700 planes by the end of the Battle of Britain, and seeing as Stuka losses account for German bomber losses overall, according to the sources I’ve been reading through (just follow the links) -German bomber losses throughout the latter years of the war were consistently over 25% by month, which is god-awful.There are only 3 Stukas still in existence today, so not many survived. AviationGeek estimated that over 20% of Germany’s Stuka force was shot down over Britain alone: Here’s why Luftwaffe lost 20% of its Ju 87 Stuka dive bombers during the Battle of Britain even though they were escorted by fighters - The Aviation Geek Club-Seeing as Stukas were picked off in droves when German fighters were unable to support them, and the Luftwaffe ceased to be an effective fighting force by 1944, even with German bomber units remaining active, I would estimate that Stuka losses were total by the end of the war.According to the manufacturing tallies in the huge report I’ve linked above: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 -Anywhere from around 1,000 to 1,100 Stukas were manufactured in 1945. 6,000 were made total, and German loss rates were consistently over 25% for the latter half of the war. If you reason that a quarter of the total of 25% of bombers lost monthly were Stukas, you could divide 25% from 6,000, and you would end up with 1,500 planes.Now we did say that only a quarter of monthly bomber losses were Stukas, so if we find 25% of 1,500, you end up with 375. So, if you times 375 monthly from 1944 to 45, so we’ll say around 20 Months (WW2 ended on September 2nd, 1945 in Europe) -375 times 20 equals 7,500, which is impractical because only 6,000 Stukas were built total.My estimate for Stuka losses by the end of the war would be close to around 5,700, to maybe 5,900. If you take away half of that number to losses from strafing and accidents, you end up with around 3,500. It’s my personal estimate to jack that number up to 4,000, seeing as the Stuka was so heavily used as a ground attack plane and thus suffered more losses from ground fire and enemy fighters. Honestly, that number is probably higher, but for the sake of estimates, I’ll leave it at that.B-17: 5,000 (40%)B-24: 2,500 (14%)P-47: 1,200 (8%)P-51: 2,500 (16%)FW-190: 16,000 (55%)ME-109: 18,000 (60%)JU-87: 4,000 (66%)A6M: 5,000 (49%)KI-43: 3,500 (59%)Another German plane is the Ju-88:-Over 15,000 Ju-88s and derivatives were built.Now Ju-88 losses again were probably/most likely total. Only 2 planes survive today, and 1 Ju-388 variant is also still alive. Both Ju-88s still around were delivered essentially to the British by defectors. Ju-88s saw some of the heaviest service in a multitude of fields by the Germans as ground attack planes, heavy fighters, night fighters, maritime craft and recon planes. They were the most numerously and diversely modified planes in the Luftwaffe.I would venture that a very large percentage of the 25% average monthly loss rate for German bombers were Ju-88s, especially past 1941–42. Ju-88s suffered heavy losses during the Battle of Britain, around 300 being lost during that battle alone.Sources for listing Ju-88 losses are incredibly difficult to pin down. Now, it goes without the obvious in saying: a pretty darn high amount of them had to be shot down, because by the end of the war, there were literally NO Ju-88s left.I cannot find any records listing more than a handful being captured intact by the Soviets and Americans on both fronts, and assuming that by the end of the war maybe a few hundred were still in service at any given time? German ground crews probably destroyed a small amount of them to prevent capture and some were strafed, but overall, Ju-88 losses were horrendous and total.I would reason that because of this, it would be impractical to say that even half of all Ju-88s were lost on the ground or to accidents, simply due to the sheer number dedicated to combat in all theaters and for all purposes for the longest period of time of most German planes.I estimate that around 9,000 Ju-88s were shot down from AA fire and other planes by the end of the war. Ju-88 losses were utterly horrifying, seeing as the Luftwaffe periodically was using them for daylight attacks while the Western Allies had air superiority, and many records show that the Germans were sometimes losing close to or over 100 planes of all types by the week. Ju-88s were essentially wiped off the face of the map as a significant threat after the losses they incurred over Normandy in 1944.So our list:B-17: 5,000 (40%)B-24: 2,500 (14%)P-47: 1,200 (8%)P-51: 2,500 (16%)FW-190: 16,000 (55%)ME-109: 18,000 (60%)JU-87: 4,000 (66%)JU-88: 9,000 (60%)A6M: 5,000 (49%)KI-43: 3,500 (59%)-Those are for some of the most produced planes on the American, German and Japanese airfleets, I won’t include losses from every single conceivable machine type that was in service, because this answer is a general blanket for your question.The Soviets are again very difficult to nail down in terms of air losses, though they did lose over 70,000 planes in total by the end of the war through destruction during operation (that doesn’t include ones destroyed on the ground).So here we go:-Close to 36,200 Ilyushin-2 Stumoviks were manufactured by the end of the war.-Around 31,000 Yak-1s were made by the end.-Around 11,400 Petlyakov Pe-2’s. (Source: The Petlyakov Pe-2)-Around 5,750 Lavochkin LaGG-7’s.This comes down to guestimating, because the Soviets were terrible at keeping track of things they found trivial, and the Germans were destroying so many Soviet machines every day that I’m sure they could hardly assume an accurate kill-count for their units, especially after 1942.According to this source: Stalin’s “Essential Aircraft:” Ilyushin Il-2 in WWII-Ilyushin Il-2 losses were around 11,570 machines by the end of the war of all causes.Now that number doesn’t distinguish between ones actually shot down and ones destroyed on the ground. Let’s assume for the purposes of this list that half of that number were destroyed on the ground, or in accidents and mishaps. That still leaves 5,900 planes to be destroyed in the air. I struggle with that number a bit, as I continue to read through the data and edit the article. Soviet air losses were horrendous. I would personally jack that number up to around 7,000 machines. So let’s update our list.B-17: 5,000 (40%)B-24: 2,500 (14%)P-47: 1,200 (8%)P-51: 2,500 (16%)FW-190: 16,000 (55%)ME-109: 18,000 (60%)JU-87: 4,000 (66%)JU-88: 9,000 (60%)A6M: 5,000 (49%)KI-43: 3,500 (59%)IL-2: 7,000 (19%)-Total Soviet air losses due to planes being destroyed in flight are around 70,000. Let’s just assume for a moment that the three remaining designs I just listed made the majority of those losses, subtracting 11,000 from the Sturmovik casualties, which decreases the number to 59,000 around. Purely for a guestimate sake, let’s even be more generous, and say that we’ll evenly divide those losses with the Yak, so 3 divided by 59,000, which would equal around 19,666, and if you round up, around 19,700. Let’s do what we did with the other planes and say half that number were strafed on the ground, so that leaves 9,850 Yak-1s to be destroyed in the air. Due to such gigantic Soviet air losses, I would up this number to 10,000 machines.Edit: Avro Lancasters:-Over 7,350 built by the end of the war.According to research compiled by the Bomber Command Museum in Canada: Bomber Command’s Losses-Around 3,349 Lancasters were shot down during flight throughout WW2. I’ve corroborated this number with several concerned commentators and cannot find any contradictory studies done to challenge it, so I would only slightly modify that number to mimic the rest of the list, and I’ll say that around 3,400 Lancasters were lost overall in service with the RAF, RCAF, and other Commonwealth air forces.So, for the list of planes that were the most shot down:B-17: 5,000 (40%)B-24: 2,500 (14%)P-47: 1,200 (8%)P-51: 2,500 (16%)FW-190: 16,000 (55%)ME-109: 18,000 (60%)JU-87: 4,000 (66%)JU-88: 9,000 (60%)A6M: 5,000 (49%)KI-43: 3,500 (59%)IL-2: 7,000 (19%)YAK-1- 10,000 (32%)AVRO LANCASTER: 3,400 (34%) Source: Lancaster Heavy Bomber.Let me add some more British plane data in here. I didn’t even realize it until I was done typing that wall of text, that I’d neglected some of their important designs.So I’ll start with the Supermarine Spitfire:-Around 20,300 were produced total, including post-war manufacturing. This number DOES NOT include the number of Supermarine Seafires built:-If you include the somewhere around 2,600 Seafires built, you end up with around 22,000 Spitfires AND Seafires.Seafire sources can be found here: Spitfire FighterAnd here: Armoured Aircraft CarriersAnd the Hurricane:-Around 14,500 were built and used by various Commonwealth forces and even some Axis units (Some Finnish and Rumanian, for example).British losses for their fightercraft are similarly elusive. According to this article: 9 Iconic Aircraft From The Battle Of Britain.-Spitfires shot down around 530 German planes during the Battle of Britain for a loss of around 230, which means the Spitefire had a K/D exchange ratio of around 2.3 to 1 against primarily the Me-109, Ju-87, Me-110 and He-111. Hurricanes also shot down around 656 enemy planes for a loss of 404 Hurricanes, which means they had a K/D ratio of around 1.6 to 1.I’ve seen some sources saying that “The RAF consistently shot down 27 planes for every Spitfire” -but the total losses don’t represent that if they mean to say on an average dogfight basis with other aircraft.Overall, if one compiles the total losses suffered by the British and the Germans during the Battle of Britain, the Germans did lose several hundred more planes of all types than the British did by the end, so it might be feasible to say that the “27 for 1” -rule IS accurate, if one counts all German planes lost to other forms of fire aside from Spitfires themselves.Doing some more digging, I’m using multiple sources for total British losses by the end of the war.I don’t trust Wikipedia. Their numbers are baked and free to edit from revisionists and trolls. But, for a starting place of basic knowledge, Wikipedia says that around 8,500 British planes were shot down in combat overall. Yet here is an article for the Bomber Command Museum listing 11,218 losses for just BOMBERS in the RAF and Commonwealth forces, and that’s not including fighter losses. Here it is: Bomber Command’s LossesI’m not the only one digging for answers, here’s another Quora question involving Spitfire numbers: How many aircraft did the Spitfire shoot down in WW2?The number I keep seeing is that Spitfires had a K/D exchange of 7/1 throughout the conflict. I personally reason that that number is closer to 4/1. Seeing as Hurricanes performed slightly worse off than Spitfires, I would reckon a good guestimation for Hurricane K/D ratios is like 3/1.Spitfires and Hurricanes were used extensively over North Africa, during early escort missions for bombers over Germany, the Battle of Britain, and saw limited exposure to conflict during 1944–45 after the invasion of Normandy, where P-51s and P-47s mostly took over establishing air superiority.I for the life of me cannot find any reputable sources accurately listing total Spitfire and Hurricane losses anywhere. For the purpose of guestimating, if we take a number similar to the Bomber Command Museum’s tallies, you could argue that overall Commonwealth air forces suffered around 25,000 planes total? All planes destroyed in combat? That wouldn’t include accidents/error, e.t.c.You would also have to factor in how many of those machines were destroyed on the ground, and a significant portion of those planes would have to be fighters, seeing as the Commonwealth lost over 30,000 fighters to all causes by the end of the war, that includes accidents, mishaps, shipping failures, you know the extent.So, if the assumed number of downed Commonwealth planes is totaled at 25,000 of all types, you might be able to guestimate. If you follow Bomber Command’s tallies, you’re already looking at over 11,200 Commonwealth losses that are all just bombers.Now according to HistoryNet: How North Africa Became a Battleground in World War II -the Italians and Germans suffered around 2,300 planes destroyed after North Africa was finally finished. You could make an argument that Commonwealth forces overall lost a plane for every plane they in turn destroyed, or had a slightly positive exchange ratio, you’d end up with around 2,100 operational losses, again, no discrepancy towards on the ground or in the air.Considering losses of the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain were around 400, and around 230 for the Spitfire, that makes around 630 planes out of the total of around 1,300 the British lost total.I found a source (not very reputable, IMO) :Hurricane losses in France, 1940 -saying that over 360 Hurricanes were lost during the Battle of France, in addition to the over 400 lost during the Battle of Britain, but it also says that a number of those 360+ were lost on the ground from being destroyed to prevent capture.If you total in the losses with the Hurricane, and guestimate from there throwing in any Pacific losses, you end up with over 1,000 Hurricanes lost, that would include Hurricanes in Romanian and Finnish colors, though the amount of machines in use by those two combatants were meager and thus their summary losses would be minuscule.I can’t give you as definitive an answer with the Spitfire and Hurricane, and I’ve been looking. This is now after several edits of checking my own information.I would say my personal guess/opinion for the total number of Hawker Hurricanes shot down would be around 1,100.For Spitfires, you have to factor in losses suffered in bomber escorting missions, losses over North Africa, and losses suffered during the Italian Campaign and during/after the Invasion of Northern France. I cannot find any reputable tallies totalling this number or assuming to make it.Compiling all of my literary knowledge and my info funnels, I estimate (roughly) that somewhere around 2,500 Spitfires were lost directly to fire- both friendly and enemy -by the end of the war.B-17: 5,000 (40%)B-24: 2,500 (14%)P-47: 1,200 (8%)P-51: 2,500 (16%)FW-190: 16,000 (55%)ME-109: 18,000 (60%)JU-87: 4,000 (66%)JU-88: 9,000 (60%)A6M: 5,000 (49%)KI-43: 3,500 (59%)IL-2: 7,000 (19%)YAK-1- 10,000 (32%)AVRO LANCASTER: 3,400 (34%)SPITFIRE: 2,500 (12%)HURRICANE: 1,100 (8%)Shorthand, finally: MY ANSWER TO YOU, based on the numbers I’ve thrown around, would be that the most-shot-down and well-known plane of WW2 was the Messerschmidt Me-109-And the runners up, 2nd Place would be the German Fw-190:Followed by 3rd Place the German Ju-88:4th Place the Soviet Yak-1:5th Place the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2:And for 6th Place, the American B-17 and Japanese A6M Zero are in a close tie, though Zeros are most likely higher on the casualty list.-Sources: Horrific WWII Statistics8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS Powershttp://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/thtrlosses.htmStalin’s “Essential Aircraft:” Ilyushin Il-2 in WWIINon-Luftwaffe Focke-Wulf 190sBomber Command’s LossesThe Luftwaffe 1933-1945World War II Database: Your WW2 History Reference DestinationGoogle Traduction :Luftwaffe Loss Charts easily placing total German aircraft destroyed from all causes at over 50,000 at minimal.

This literally made my blood boil.Just like any other day, I was scrolling down Quora, wondering how much it has changed since 2016.Just then, I came across this answer-Pravasi Meet's answer to Does female privilege exist?I request you, please give it a read before judging me or my answer.According to me, this answer is quite biased and consists of many absolute and harsh statements.I do not understand why people usually misunderstand the meaning of feminism. Especially, on Quora, most people who talk about women’s rights are misinterpreted as pseudo-feminists.Do you realise the phrase “on the ground of the equality of the sexes”?It is common sense that to make two things equal, you need to add on to the part which is deprived to bring it up.Look at the below image if you found this statement confusing-Now, to answer the main question, I want to present some views with reference to Pravasi Meet’s answer.Point 1I request you to have a look at the following:NCRB data 2018: 1 rape reported every 15 minutes in IndiaCould you point out the female privileges here sir?I tried really hard but couldn’t seem to find any.Point 2“Only man is considered criminal while the woman is ALWAYS considered victim” seems to be a strong statement that’s embedded in your mind and reflects in your writing too, sir.To check this statement, I conducted a social experiment with one of my friends. I told him about people (males) sending me DMs on quora praising me ‘excessively’ if you know what I mean?He termed it as ‘ladki hone ke fayde’ (benefits of being a girl)He also expressed that boys rarely get such messages from girls.Well, the reason for this is that, in a majority of cases, whenever we girls text a male quoran to appreciate his writing, he tends to take it further.So, to verify this, both of us texted the same quoran (male) writing the exact same words, genuinely appreciating his writing.His response for me was-“Thanks a lot for appreciating, I will follow you to express my gratitude’He also went through my profile and tried to make conversation and ask about my personal life.I won’t even start mentioning the no. of creepy messages I get on Quora frequentyHis response for my male friend-“Thanks buddy”That’s it!Do you see the difference?I won’t call this a privilege, but rather disheartening as I hesitate in texting many male quorans to simply appreciate their writing, due to the fear of being stalked afterwards.Of course, there are men who know how to take compliments, but they are rare.If you’re one of them, I respect you for that!Point 3Why do you think that a baloney case with zero evidence could ever get you in trouble? Again, I strongly believe that laws to prevent sexual harassment in workplaces should be treated as necessary rather than a ‘privilege’.This issue is not only prevalent in India, but worldwide.In fact, you should be proud of the female community for not giving you the chance to present statistics that show real (not fabricated) male sexual harassment in the corporate world.I am strongly against women who might misuse this right in order to have things their way, but I have seen that such women are punished and exposed appropriately.Point 4The rhetoric question in the starting of this point makes me feel like I am watching a NaapTol advert on the telly. Jokes apart,Why don’t you realise that the laws are there for a REASON.I can’t find logic in calling these laws a PRIVILEGEThe real victims of dowry do not continue to suffer in silence because they are unaware of the laws, but because they are threatened by the husband’s family.Here, I would cite an example I had seen a few months ago.The lady who used to come for cleaning at my house told my mom one day that she was regularly beaten by her husband for money even after her family had paid him dowry at the time of the wedding. My mom even told her to report the matter to the police.Her reply was simple.She told us that she was, as a matter of fact, well aware of the laws, but she was scared of her husband as he gave her death threats. She also expressed that her family would not take her back if she divorced him.I do not understand sir, that why you have so much rage against the female community. Again, females who misuse this law are arrested and tried accordingly.Whereas, the males continue to dominate and oppress due to our patriarchal and biased society.Dowry death - Wikipedia.Where’s the privilege?Point 5Till date, I have never heard of any cases where the husband has been brutally beaten by his wife and not retaliated.Again, please could you provide statistics showing domestic male abuse in India?Please note that self-defence used by the woman should not be considered as an attack.Whereas, there are many cases in which the wife is tortured so brutally that eventually, she dies.India: Man kills wife staged it as rape and murder in BengaluruThough domestic violence is a gender-neutral crime, I believe that physical domination is rather a male privilege, isn’t it?Point 6Being a JEE aspirant myself, this is the point which forced me to write this answer!Do you see the term GENDER BALANCE there?My personal observation is that in a majority of Indian households, daughters are encouraged to take Biology whereas sons are encouraged for maths.We have gone to such an extent that now we are even classifying SUBJECTS on the basis of gender??!!To prevent this, our govt took this initiative. Well, talking about gender balance, the sex ratio in India is already quite excellent thanks to female infanticide!I do not consider this reservation as a privilege at all, rather a pain.I mean what the hell do you mean by girls topper??You do not call the rank 1 holder as BOYS topper do you???I feel quite disrespected while being referred to as GIRLS topper.Either I am a topper, or I’m NOT, please STOP this!!Gender-based reservation is not the solution to this issue. It’s only discrediting female merit and achievements. It would be better if people improved their attitude towards education of both men and women.Point 7I do not see why would any girl lash out on you because of a purely unintentional collision. If she does, she’s a moron and she deserves to be ridiculed.However, there can be confusions, because most men do not know how to keep their hands to themselves, yes. Bitter but true. All of us have heard many instances where women have been molested in crowded buses, metros etc.Now if you call the all ladies coach in Delhi metro a privilege, I believe it is a NECESSITY sir, given the rise of sexual assaults.Point 8No, this is not true. Many times I have seen women travelling with little kids while standing and the male passengers sitting on seats. And I don’t see any fault in that. After all, in public transport, first come is first served.However, etiquettes like offering your seat to a pregnant or senior co-passenger is something which both boys and girls should follow, in my opinionYou have the full right to deny a woman if she asks for your seat.Also, you might want to see this image-Vacating your seat should be an act of courtesy for those who need it more than you. It should have nothing to do with gender.Point 9Oh, did you know?I secured 96% in class 10th because I painstakingly found out the address of each of my examiners and smiled at them! You are completely wrong to think that I secured these marks through merit.My teachers awarded me full marks in internals because I have a pretty smile, not because I completed my assignments and notebooks on time.In fact, I do not even need to study before my exams!I just focus on grooming my face and brushing my teeth with Colgate thrice a day so that I can unleash the WICKED POWER OF MY CUTE SMILE!I am sorry if you could not take my sarcasm, but I could not think of a better way of conveying how much this point irritated me, being a hard-working student.This is the real scenario-Cops arrest brute teacher for molesting teenage studentPoint 10Ahem, why would any sane family want to waste their hard-earned money on a person who least deserves it and is new to their life??This situation is way too hypothetical, sir!Can you ever imagine this sort of conversation happening in real life?-“Are beta ye BMW aur bungalow ki chaabi rakh lo, humari taraf se chhota sa gift hai. Ye property aur jewellery ab tumhari hi hai beta”Translation- Take our riches as a gift dear son (groom)Groom-”Are nahi uncle, main ye sab kaise le sakta hoon. Mujhe sirf aapka ashirvad chahiye”Translation-Groom- I can’t accept these offerings, your blessings are enoughBride’s father-” Agar tumne ye accept nahi kiya toh main tumhe aur tumhari family ko jaan se maar dunga”Translation- If you do not accept these gifts, I will kill you and your family.In fact, the real scenario is that people consider their daughters as a burden because they feel like they have to PAY to get them married.Hyderabad court convicts man, parents in dowry death casePoint 11I feel embarrassed about having to counterattack this point.This is a big insult to all the housewives out there. Even our mothers, as they have stayed at home at some point in their lives to look after us!Who said that men are obligated to work? The concept of being a house-husband is slowly getting recognised in our society as the fight for equality continues.From today, we should ask our fathers to leave their jobs and take our mom’s responsibilities, and let her achieve what she deserves, what she sacrificed all these years.My mom and dad are both equally educated, but my mom chose to give up her career to look after me and my sister, and she has my huge respect for that. Meanwhile, my dad continued to progress in his career.She didn’t choose to stay at home to have FUN. I can say that the job she is doing along with millions of moms out there cannot be compared to any other profession. She does not demand salary for it, does not mean that her work should be undervalued.In fact, this point of your enraged and hurt my mother to quite an extent, sir, I believe that you owe a sincere apology to all the housewives and mothers out there for this harsh statement.In fact, society mostly rushes to get girls married and have kids as soon as possible. Many girls are FORCED to give up their aspirations due to this very reason.And this is not hypothetical!Why motherhood makes Indian women quit their jobsAgain, where is the privilege?Personally, I wouldn’t consider looking after babies and a full-grown man who is apparently your husband rather than achieving your dream goals a PRIVILEGE.Point 12Again, this law was made because most wives in India are not financially independent, due to point 11.Now, women who seek alimony even after being financially self-sufficient are bringing nothing else but shame to themselves. I wouldn’t want a penny from a man who would’ve tried to oppress me.Citing an incident I had witnessed personally-3 years ago a good friend of my dad’s was divorced by his wife on personal terms. In this case, the fault was for sure with the woman, as she could not sustain the marriage because of her inner demons. The husband was a wonderful man. But still, the wife asked for a huge sum of money as alimony.The husband fought well for his case and the amount was reduced by 70% if not completely. He no longer needs to pay her anything.From this incident, I observed that women cannot demand outstanding amounts of alimony from their husbands just to harass them. The court listens to men too, and I appreciate that a LOT!Point 13I need to say, sir, you need to be more observant of the society.Girls who chose career over guys are morally policed by society and taunted at every turn whereas a girl who chooses to get married before the age of 25 is given due respect!“Your biological clock is ticking”“You won’t get a good groom is you get so educated’’“It is difficult to get married after 25, you should see to your career later”These are just a few statements that girls in their early 20s have to hear.Where is the privilege in this?Point 14I agree that there is 50% relaxation, but this is again in the context of encouraging female aspirants because many parents think of their daughters’ education as a waste of money due to societal stereotypes and orthodox mentalities.I do not think of it as a privilege, but yet another attempt to bridge the gap between the no. of male and female aspirants.I am quite sure that no examination form must be totally FREE for girls, if it is, please cite.2020 has definitely seen a rise in female candidates, but we are still a long way from achieving equality.Point 15Whenever there is sexual intercourse, it’s the woman’s body that shows signs of losing virginity, even though men lose it too. And in India, virginity is considered a very sensitive property for females. And of course, a woman’s virginity can be checked, whereas a man can have sex and leave without having to worry about anything of this sort.In many cases, the couple has consensual sex, and if the woman becomes pregnant, the man starts running away. Cutting all ties with her and calling her all of those insults, which I cannot mention in this answer.Also, in a majority of the relationships, the woman is convinced into having sex and then abandoned. When she tries to speak against it, the man says that she is falsely accusing him!We are not USE AND THROW objects for goodness’ sake!Where is the privilege in this sir?I believe that it’s rather a huge disadvantage that a woman’s activities reflect on her body too.Man kills pregnant girlfriend!27-year-old man kills pregnant live-in partner, surrenders before police in Pune17-year-old pregnant girl found abandoned at Pilibhit railway station | Bareilly News - Times of IndiaPoint 16Casting couch is a REAL thing, sir!It is quite unfortunate that the Me Too campaign was misused by some, but it started because of the prevailing sexual harassment in our industry.The criminals are still roaming around freely, while numerous struggling actresses are being forced under covers to get the roles they DESERVE!Bollywood #MeToo accused are back at workPoint 17Women make fun of laws and courts?Hell! It’s the whole system that takes crimes against women lightly, if not as a joke. Women need to fight for YEARS to get justice, and convictions are RARE.Just one word- NirbhayaThe poor soul was ever so brutally murdered by jobless freaks, and yet those devils got to live for 9 YEARS MORE than her!2012 Delhi gang rape and murder - WikipediaJUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIEDThe struggle for justice for India's rape victimsSuch a privilege isn’t it?Point 18Arguments are based on opinions and the way of expressing them, how has gender got to do anything with it?If you feel that people have mercy on girls in an argument just because of their gender, you are going to be proven wrong in the comment section, when people lash out on me inconsiderably :)No privilege, hence proved!Point 19Yeah, it most possibly can be a mistake sir!After all, if a female enters a male washroom, even by mistake, it’s she who is at risk, not the men in there.We females really look out for the gender signs before using public washrooms.Men do too.Except for some exceptionsGirl, 3, raped in McDonald's bathroomIf you are saying that it is a privilege for us to see men attending to their nature’s call, we don’t need to put ourselves to the risk of entering a male washroom, we can simply lookout on the road, especially in India.Point 20The girl would most probably be seen by a relative, brutally thrashed at home, deprived of her education and married off to a complete stranger within a month!Family kills Odisha girl over relationshipI’m still searching for the privilege with a magnifying glass!I thank you for staying with me till the end of this answer, indeed it was quite long. But I couldn’t say less in this regard, if not more.I know that many of you would disagree, and I respect that, but I would be more than happy if you back your comments with proper arguments rather than absolute rage.I have tried my best to express what I feel regarding this issue.I hope that the concept of equality is realised soon enough, and feminism is accepted with the view of improving this world for both genders.Thank you!Image source- GoogleAvani PEDIT-I would like to post an extract of a post written by Tharun KumarWe need a society where prejudice, inequality, disrespect, and discrimination is eradicated.We believe that the day women are given equal opportunities as men and both are seen as one by law, order, and society, such a day would be real independence and a day of victory.Where men can be househusbands without being shamed.Where women can be housewives without being called backward.Where both men and women divide their work, cook, and eat together.Where men and women pay their respective bills and buy their own things without expecting the other to pay up for them.Where dowry and demands such as ‘He should earn more than me’ and ‘He should have more qualifications than me.’ are nonexistent.Where men aren’t seen as moving ATMs and being chauvinistic and women aren’t seen as gold diggers and baby-makers.Where women are paid according to their work and not on personal factors like whether they’re married.Where women serve in the defense forces as much as men do.Where a man crying does not make him weak.We want feminism, not misandry.EDIT 1 -Feminism is not about disrespecting men’s rights. I believe that the FEM part of FEMinism makes it look like it’s all about women.Of course, no one deserves to face such animalistic behaviour from either gender, but again, the guy whose answer I countered had written absolute statements which disregard and disrespect women as a community.You cannot just write anything and then mention a small disclaimer like-’I’m not generalising women’.He started each point with ‘she’ rather than ‘some women’. The choice of words can have a powerful effect, can be either detrimental or uplifting. He didn’t even back up his points with evidence or stats, it was just plain rage against the female community, which I being a female (before a feminist) couldn’t stand.Men’s rights matter just as much as women. But again, it’s not a competition! The simple motive behind writing this answer was not to gain upvotes or show my writing skills, but to present the other side of the argument. As I deserve to be heard just as much as he does, and no one’s always right or wrong, the thing that matters at the end of the day is that we realise the true sense of feminism, and try to reduce our hatred towards people who speak up for equal rights.I agree with the fact that both genders are unique in their own ways, but equal opportunities should be provided for all so that no one is held back, and all of us can realise our true potential to finally achieve a society wherein we see ourselves as humans first, rather than men or women.It’s wrong to say that we are ‘privileged’🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️I’m not against laws for men but only to the point, it is done fairly.And there, you said it yourself!Note- I haven’t deleted anyone’s comment personally. It is either deleted by Quora moderation or the author of the comment.EDIT- Answer does need editing, kindly ignore the flaws as I am accepting them and am aware.

Typically, all information used in financial analysis of public companies is available through a variety of filings.Investment BankingIn investment banking, typically a public information book (PIB) is created at first. This is just an aggregate of all the most recent publicly-available information on the company. Usually, the PIB includes the following:General public information (Company information and financial data from FactSet, Capital IQ, and Bloomberg).Prospectus (usually follows a major event, like M&A, equity offering, etc.)Annual reportForm 10-KForm 10-QProxy statement - information about company shares and shareholdersResearch reports (sell-side equity research)News run (usually for the past 2-6 months if available, from company website or Bloomberg)Ownership run (tracks ownership structure of a company)From this, a company profile can be constructed. This typically includes a company overview, market statistics, a financial overview (projections, statements), stock price performance, leadership, products, and ownership. The purpose of this is to gain an understanding of the company itself - how it's segmented, how it's performed in the last year, or any important events to take into consideration.Then from there on, more specific analyses are conducted. For example, for an acquisition ideas presentation, a variety of things need to be taken into consideration:Determination of fit (size, industry, technology, synergies, etc.)Target's potential (organic growth prospects, management talent, etc.)Financial considerations (target leverage, accretion/dilution of shares, market perception)Legal considerations (anti-trust, etc.)Then the target is examined for availability (whether or not they're likely to sell). Signs for a lack of availability include:Significant insider control with no need for liquidityFamily-owned with clear-cut succession strategyMajority owned by another company for which holding onto the target company is a clearly beneficial choiceStrong and consistent financial performanceCurrent parent is clearly the best owner for the target companySigns of availability include:Owned by a private equity firm looking for an exitFinancial underperformanceNeed for capitalShareholder discontent/activismManagement lacking in talent (failure to grow organically, struggling performance, etc.)Then, from there on, models are constructed (pro-forma merger models, DCF, LBO if applicable, comparable companies, precedent transactions) which are used to justify a purchase price for a strategic transaction. I will not run through how to build the models, as it would not be economical for me to explain here. I suggest reading Investment Banking by Rosenbaum & Pearl for insight into modeling, as well as Macabacus, which is a great web resource.Hedge FundsAt the hedge fund where I work (long/short fundamental), the analyses are actually a lot less quantitative. Our fundamental financial analysis process focuses mainly on determining whether or not the current market price is justified given the risks associated with the stock.For example, the Apollo Group (NYSE: APOL) was trading at just shy of 6x earnings (P/E) when I was looking at it as a potential investment opportunity. Because my fund focuses on value investing, such a low P/E clearly presented a possibility for profit if all the negativity and bearishness surrounding the industry were unjustified. I did a lot of investigating on for-profit education in general, looking at education journals and objective surveys of academic performance and cost measures, as well as Senator Harkin's very harsh report detailing the failure of for-profits on delivering an education worth the cost.In the end I presented a thesis to not invest because:APOL's admirably optimistic attempts at restructuring operations are too late in the game. While they do streamline costs, the rate at which costs are declining is far overpowered by the rate at which revenues are fallingInsiders are selling shares. Control is also held 100% by a single party (only one class of voting shares which is all owned by one guy), which is a fundamentally broken ownership structureEnrollment is dropping steeplyPublic perception of for-profit education is almost universally negativePublic scrutiny of for-profit education is tightening, especially with Obama's recent presidential win. It's unlikely that the already harsh regulatory environment will mellow anytime soonHigher Education Act is up for revision again, and it looks like the rules will only get worse for institutions like ApolloApollo derives ~85% of earnings from government, which is just too reliant. Recent budget cutbacks could negatively impact the company's earningsI may have forgotten some reasons, but you get the picture.I built comps and precedent transactions models but that was it - did not need a DCF (very unreliable for a company with such an unpredictable future) and chose not to build an LBO because I didn't see my fund investing in the company and felt it would be a waste of time.I know this was an example but I hope it outlines the research process. We look a lot more at fundamentals and potential for growth with regards to the stock price. More quantitative means of analysis, like modeling, are reserved for when they're actually needed. This allows fund analysts to cover more companies at once and not waste time building models they don't need.I hope this helps. I'd be happy to answer any questions, just comment below!Don't really know how private equity financial analysis works, but I imagine it's similar to investment banking except looking at PE related financial measures, like leverage or FCF yield.