An Allison V-1710 with a two-speed supercharger in 1942 (9 Viewers)

[drgondog]

Or Wildcats / Martlets, or Avengers, or Corsairs or Hellcats (at least, on an early enough timeline so to speak)



I get that, I already conceded a couple of times to drop the proposal of the P-39X I kinda feel like I stepped in something when I made that comment and now it won't come off my shoe...



Yeah but how about a V-1650-1 (or theoretical V-1710 equivalent) into a P-51 / P-51A

It would have worked. Had NAA not been shut down by GMC when they requested R-R in late 1941, and had the AAF been disposed to allocating some of the 1650-1 production (HIGHLY unlikely in 1942) the P-51A could have been delivered with Merlin in Feb 1943 and operational in small numbers in Fall 1943.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Plus, if installed on something like the Spitfire II instead of the Merlin XX, it would've gave the RAF a 370+ mph fighter already in the closing stages of the BoB; the Merlin 45 was only available after 1940.

Spitfire III weighed on 14 March 1940, operational trials from 18 July. Now get it into production in 1940 with Castle Bromwich behind schedule and Supermarine works bombed.

To end 1940 Rolls Royce indicates large numbers of Merlin III, 455 Merlin XII and 339 Merlin XX were available, the XII in numbers from April, the XX starting in July 1940. The upgrade of the Luftwaffe bomber force, more Ju88, meant the 1941 Hurricane really needed the Merlin XX for bomber interception while carrying the becoming required heavier armament.

Castle Bromwich built 354 Spitfire II in 1940. Supermarine built July to December 1940, mark I+PRIII, 137, 127, 100, 61, 73, 42, the drop off a combination of unsustainable work load in the summer and the bomb damage. A single mark V in January 1941 then production from March, Merlin 45 production from January 1941.

Until the middle/end of 1943 when the P-47 and P-51 proved themselves in combat it was the Spitfire everyone wanted, and the latest versions as only they had consistently shown the ability to match Luftwaffe fighter performance. Anything that impeded production had to be justified. In 1941 the aim was to get Fighter Command to an all Spitfire force (in theory with Hurricanes being phased out by Typhoons) to fight battle of Britain mark II, either in 1941 or 1942. Fighter Command 1 January 1941, 40 Hurricane to 19 Spitfire, 1 April 40:24, 1 July 30:37, 1 October 32:43, 1 January 1942 12:58. And yes it could have happened sooner if the losses over France in the second half of 1941 had been less severe.

You are really describing yourself, and you are editorializing here.

No actually on all accounts, in a discussion where people have knowledge of the subject incorrect statements get corrections.

You didn't merely challenge data, which is fine, but veered heavily into childish and gratuitous insults layered on top of (incorrect) claims on the data, to which I responded. You apparently want to go on forever trading insults but I'll limit my engagement to the bare minimum.

Editorial setting up why failing to actually answer the question is the right thing to do.

Everything I said about you holds true and I think it's obvious to most reading the thread.

Everything in your preferred vision, it is inadvisable to speak for others unless you have their permission.

It means you pulled these statements out of your arse (most likely repeating from some other summary in a secondary source), with no statistics to back up your claims.

USAAF Study 85, Fighter Victory Credits see https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA542272.pdf

MTO only

Stat Dig

Here

1​

14​

27​

31​

33​

52​

57​

79​

81​

82​

86​

324​

325​

332​

350​

misc

Oct-42​

22​

27​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

27​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

Nov-42​

16​

40.5​

3.5​

23​

0​

3​

0​

2​

9​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

Dec-42​

43​

63.33​

17​

22​

0​

0​

6​

5.33​

11​

0​

0​

1​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

1​

Jan-43​

56​

86​

13​

12​

0​

0​

21​

7​

7​

0​

0​

26​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

Feb-43​

57​

71​

12​

1​

0​

7​

8​

5​

1​

0​

0​

35​

0​

0​

0​

0​

2​

0​

Mar-43​

103​

137.5​

22​

0​

1​

12​

37.5​

18​

4​

2​

2​

39​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

Apr-43​

319​

332.5​

57​

0​

2​

28​

13​

43​

53.5​

22​

0​

86​

0​

27​

1​

0​

0​

0​

May-43​

132​

136​

23​

18​

0​

11​

1​

5​

0​

6​

0​

42​

0​

1​

29​

0​

0​

0​

Jun-43​

115​

161​

22​

16​

0​

28​

2​

8​

4​

27​

4​

22​

0​

0​

23​

0​

5​

0​

Jul-43​

125​

174​

2​

26​

0​

9​

7​

10​

1​

0​

0​

24​

0​

19​

64​

1​

1​

10​

Aug-43​

117​

120​

33​

36​

0​

6​

5​

5​

0​

3​

0​

11​

3​

0​

9​

0​

2​

7​

Sep-43​

102​

92​

8​

11​

13​

7​

13​

0​

0​

0​

1​

28​

7​

0​

0​

0​

2​

2​

Oct-43​

81​

66​

12​

15​

16​

0​

1​

0​

4​

0​

0​

11​

6​

0​

0​

0​

1​

0​

Nov-43​

21​

28​

4​

0​

3​

3​

0​

0​

2​

2​

0​

9​

2​

0​

0​

0​

0​

3​

Dec-43​

42​

72​

3​

16​

3​

10​

0​

2​

7​

0​

0​

22​

1​

3​

3​

0​

2​

0​

Jan-44​

170​

189.5​

13​

20​

2​

30​

8​

14​

3​

12.5​

0​

12​

0​

1​

57​

13​

0​

4​

Feb-44​

111​

104.5​

2​

5​

1​

24.5​

0​

27​

0​

6​

0​

11​

0​

8​

8​

4​

1​

7​

Mar-44​

103​

117​

21​

9​

0​

16​

0​

1​

3​

2​

0​

17​

0​

3​

37​

0​

1​

7​

Apr-44​

224​

227​

39​

56​

0​

51​

0​

2​

6​

0​

0​

34​

0​

0​

34​

0​

5​

0​

May-44​

190​

189​

25​

37​

1​

47​

0​

38​

4​

6​

0​

13​

0​

0​

12​

0​

0​

6​

Jun-44​

285​

284.5​

35​

20​

0​

52​

0​

90.5​

0​

0​

0​

40​

0​

0​

42​

5​

0​

0​

Jul-44​

376​

389​

35​

29​

0​

82​

0​

61​

7​

6​

0​

60​

0​

0​

69​

31​

0​

9​

Aug-44​

151​

156​

3​

12​

1​

57​

0​

22​

0​

0​

0​

2​

1​

0​

44​

5​

0​

9​

Sep-44​

18​

17​

0​

0​

0​

5​

0​

0​

0​

3​

0​

0​

0​

0​

7​

0​

0​

2​

Oct-44​

60​

50​

1​

0​

0​

19​

0​

5​

0​

0​

0​

1​

0​

0​

12​

9​

3​

0​

Nov-44​

34​

30.5​

0.5​

8​

0​

9​

0​

5​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

6​

2​

0​

0​

Dec-44​

38​

41​

0​

11​

0​

16​

0​

6​

0​

0​

0​

0​

2​

0​

2​

0​

0​

4​

Jan-45​

8​

9​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

9​

0​

0​

0​

Feb-45​

8​

7​

0​

2​

1​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

1​

0​

1​

2​

Mar-45​

105​

108​

2​

3​

0​

36​

0​

13​

0​

0​

0​

3​

0​

0​

32​

16​

3​

0​

Apr-45​

68​

58​

2​

1​

0​

2​

0​

3​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

21​

18​

11​

0​

May-45​

1​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

1​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

1942​

81​

130.83​

20.5​

45​

0​

3​

6​

7.33​

47​

0​

0​

1​

0​

0​

0​

0​

0​

1​

1943​

1270​

1476​

211​

151​

38​

121​

108.5​

103​

83.5​

62​

7​

355​

19​

50​

129​

1​

15​

22​

1944​

1760​

1795​

174.5​

207​

5​

408.5​

8​

271.5​

23​

35.5​

0​

190​

3​

12​

330​

69​

10​

48​

1945​

189​

183​

4​

6​

1​

38​

0​

17​

0​

0​

0​

3​

0​

0​

63​

34​

15​

2​

total

3300​

3584.83​

410​

409​

44​

570.5​

122.5​

398.83​

153.5​

97.5​

7​

549​

22​

62​

522​

104​

40​

73​

Credits issued for operations by the unit in the Mediterranean. The main aim at the time was comparison with the numbers in the USAAF Statistical Digest. Notice the gaps and drop offs in P-40 unit claims?

A couple of more recent finds, Air 40/1096 Statistical Summary of 9th Air Force Operations 16 Oct 1943 to 8 May 1945, MTO operations, 79th FG Feb 43 claims are for pilots flying with 57th FG

	57th	79th	324th
Aug-42​
Sep-42​
Oct-42​	27​
Nov-42​	17​
Dec-42​	10​
Jan-43​	10​
Feb-43​	1​	1​
Mar-43​	4​	2​
Apr-43​	55​	18​	25​
May-43​		7​	1​
Jun-43​	3​	26​
Jul-43​			17​
Aug-43​		5​
Sep-43​
1942​	54​	0​	0​
1943​	73​	59​	43​
Grand	127​	59​	43​

15th Air Force, fighter victory credits
AFHRA 670.308-2, 15th AF Campaign Statistics
AFHRA 670.308-3, 15th AF Target and Duty sheets Dec 43 to Feb 44 (incomplete)
AFHRA 670.308-4, 15th AF Daily/Monthly statistics March to October 1944
US Archives,
Target and Duty Sheets, 15th Air Force, Record Group 18 Entry 7, Boxes 5927 (Apr-44), 5928 (Aug,Sep-44), 5939 (Jun,Jul-44) 5940 (Dec-43 to Mar 44, May and Oct 44)
Record Group 18 entry 7, Boxes 5924, 5925 15th AF Monthly Report Apr 44 to Mar 45 (except Oct 44). Note sortie figures are pilot sorties = effective + non effective crossing enemy lines.

Group	1​	14​	31​	52​	82​	325​	332​	Total
Nov-43​	5​				8​			13​
Dec-43​	3​	13​			20​	3​		39​
Jan-44​	12​	18​			13​	56​		99​
Feb-44​		5​			10​	10​		25​
Mar-44​	14​	8​			14​	34​		70​
Apr-44​	34​	55​	48​		33​	35​		205​
May-44​	20​	37​	46​	40​	11​	12​		166​
Jun-44​	41​	19​	56​	93​	37​	43​	5​	294​
Jul-44​	32​	27​	83​	67​	58​	69​	39​	375​
Aug-44​	3​	9​	55​	25​	2​	42​	5​	141​
Sep-44​			5​			7​		12​
Oct-44​			19​	6​	1​	11​	11​	48​
Total	164​	191​	312​	231​	207​	322​	60​	1487​

USAAF claims could take weeks to months to be awarded, creating inconsistencies, the Frank Olynyk lists are considered the best available, ones the Mediterranean Air War books had access to.

This is the second accusation of making up data, this one is obviously wrong, please provide the first example, including the reference for the relevant document claimed to prove the case.

Just in the 10 days I posted operational data for - admittedly days when I found combat for these units-

And failing to make the connection a book is unlikely to report the no combat days. Even after noting how during 1943 there were peaks, but not how long and low the troughs were.

* Before I get corrected as a 'gotcha', Corsica was annexed by Free French, Sardinia by Italians taking over after the Germans withdrew to Corsica, then taken by Allies

The Germans withdrew from Sardinia helped by the Italians, leaving them behind in what was Italy pre war. The Germans made a fighting withdrawal from Corsica which was French pre war, fighting between French resistance forces and the Germans began with the Italians in the middle mostly becoming Germans versus everyone else plus Free French troops sent initially by submarine.

So given that 79th FG claimed 118 'confirmed' victories with P-40s during their entire deployment in the MTO, and more than 33 of these (27% of their total claims) were claimed during the battle of Anzio in 1944, would you still insist that your claim that they were 'largely' done with air combat by June 1943 is correct?

Looked up the dictionary definition of largely?

Similarly, 33rd FG claimed 137 victories in 16 months of fighting with P-40s, of which more than 13 were claimed during Anzio in one month (January) in 1944, which is 9%. But they were 'largely ceasing to engage in air combat' by September 1943? Are you sure about that?

See the data above.

There was a great deal of overclaiming, clearly,

Make the connections, after listing large numbers of USAAF fighter claims and noting they were mostly for enemy fighters, so few enemy fighters actually lost says trying to figure out the better USAAF fighters should really become why were a collective near failure, disguising this by massive over claiming, or the enemy losses figures are incorrect instead more like the ones in Williamson Murray.

One other clarification - IIRC the only one of these five FG which was flying 'Strategic' missions was 325th FG which was attached to a bomber group flying B-26s, and this was for example where they were often engaged over Sardinia with no other friendly fighters around, making it easier to verify their claims. Whether this is really 'Strategic' bombing is debatable, it's a matter of semantics but I'd call it Operational.

Actually what I said was it, along with the heavies and mediums were part of what was called the strategic air force, giving it a different mission profile to the other P-40 groups, this needs to be accounted for. Whether a mission was tactical or strategic is something the allied forces use, the Luftwaffe used operational.

In terms of allied air OOB see US Archives Record Group 18 Entry 7 Box 5931.

Similarly some Spitfire units were not flying "coastal patrol" with rare enemy encounters only with long range coastal aircraft like some of the P-39 units or the Beaufighters, but rather were engaged at certain points in protecting Allied shipping during the invasions. So they saw plenty of combat.

Actually what I said was 1 Spitfire group was assigned to the coastal air force and this needs to be accounted for, no mention of missions, note how things are generously reworded.

By the way, you clearly do know a lot about some subjects,

Please provide the list of what subjects I am supposed to know something, which usually tells more about the person making the list. Make the claim, back it up.

But you also just as clearly sometimes veer well beyond your areas of expertise,

Into areas that seemingly cannot be listed, which raises the point on who has the expertise problem.

I encourage you to admit where you don't know all about a given subject, particularly when 1 book is the only reference. Let the anger go. I believe you'll enjoy the experience here more. As for the rest of the people that is their decision. Meantime I dislike junk history, it gets too many people killed or at least throwing away their future for or on an imagined past.

Mark Factory (start of production to 1950)
I, II Derby
III Derby
III Crewe
IV Derby
VIII Derby
X Crewe
X Derby
XII Derby
XX Crewe
XX Derby
XX Ford
XX Glasgow
21 Crewe
21 Derby
22 Crewe
22 Derby
22 Ford
22 Glasgow
23 Crewe
23 Glasgow
24 Crewe
24 Derby
24 Ford
24 Glasgow
T.24 Derby
T.24 Ford
25 Derby
25 Ford
25 Glasgow
27 Glasgow
30 Derby
32 Derby
45 Crewe
45 Derby
46 Crewe
46 Derby
47 Derby
50 Crewe
50 Derby
55 Crewe
55M Crewe
56 Derby
60 Derby
61 Derby
62 Derby
63 Crewe
63 Derby
64 Derby
65 Derby
66 Crewe
66 Derby
66 Glasgow
67 Crewe
67 Derby
67 Glasgow
70 Crewe
71C Derby
72 Crewe
72 Derby
73 Derby
76 Crewe
76 Glasgow
77 Derby
85 Derby
85 Glasgow
85T Glasgow
100 Glasgow
101 Glasgow
102 Glasgow
104 Glasgow
113 Glasgow
114 Glasgow
130 Derby
130 Glasgow
131 Derby
131 Glasgow

There is also the issue, as I noted previously, of the ~4,000 Packard Merlin XX / 28 which ended up in Canada and in aircraft which were as far as I've been able to determine mostly not involved in the war.

Canada received 480 Merlin 29 for its 400 Hurricane XII, when 150 of the partially stripped Hurricane airframes were donated to Britain the RCAF used the spare engines to upgrade survivors of 80 mark I from British orders.

Next start with Canada received few Merlin XX and those for RAF order Hurricanes were exported to Britain and in any case the ones arriving in 1942 lacked accessories, they could not be flown. US Merlins were installed on the 1,133 Mosquito and 430 Lancaster built in Canada, or just under 4,000 engines. Not all left Canada given the need for trainers in Canada plus the obvious signs the European war was coming to an end.

Pre war the British had come up with Stirling/Hercules, Halifax/Merlin, Manchester/Vulture as their heavy bombers, big change to Merlin requirements when the Lancaster came along then again when the Halifax went Hercules.

Meantime back in Canada, the RCAF took Merlin III and associated propellers from Fairey Battles to create an emergency 30 strong Hurricane fighter force, it then received Merlin III for 50 Sea Hurricanes meant as the North American pool mostly for the CAM ships but in reality became part of the RCAF home defence. Britain records the arrival of 419 Hurricane I airframes, plus 447 Hurricane II airframes and 234 Hurricane II with engine, after 8 I and 11 II were lost at sea en route.

 

[Engineman]

Just to note: It looks like a clear reference to the 2-Stage Merlin fit into the Spitfire is mentioned in the minutes of the Joint Development and Production Committee, 6 March 1941.

Eng

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Everything in your preferred vision, it is inadvisable to speak for others unless you have their permission.

Take your own advice

​

Credits issued for operations by the unit in the Mediterranean. The main aim at the time was comparison with the numbers in the USAAF Statistical Digest. Notice the gaps and drop offs in P-40 unit claims?

Which doesn't match Shores research, clearly.

A couple of more recent finds, Air 40/1096 Statistical Summary of 9th Air Force Operations 16 Oct 1943 to 8 May 1945, MTO operations, 79th FG Feb 43 claims are for pilots flying with 57th FG

Once again, this summary doesn't match Shores daily operational history, which may due to which Air Force the various units were assigned to I don't know, but the data speaks for itself.

15th Air Force, fighter victory credits
AFHRA 670.308-2, 15th AF Campaign Statistics
AFHRA 670.308-3, 15th AF Target and Duty sheets Dec 43 to Feb 44 (incomplete)
AFHRA 670.308-4, 15th AF Daily/Monthly statistics March to October 1944
US Archives,
Target and Duty Sheets, 15th Air Force, Record Group 18 Entry 7, Boxes 5927 (Apr-44), 5928 (Aug,Sep-44), 5939 (Jun,Jul-44) 5940 (Dec-43 to Mar 44, May and Oct 44)
Record Group 18 entry 7, Boxes 5924, 5925 15th AF Monthly Report Apr 44 to Mar 45 (except Oct 44). Note sortie figures are pilot sorties = effective + non effective crossing enemy lines.

Group	1​	14​	31​	52​	82​	325​	332​	Total
Nov-43​	5​				8​			13​
Dec-43​	3​	13​			20​	3​		39​
Jan-44​	12​	18​			13​	56​		99​
Feb-44​		5​			10​	10​		25​
Mar-44​	14​	8​			14​	34​		70​
Apr-44​	34​	55​	48​		33​	35​		205​
May-44​	20​	37​	46​	40​	11​	12​		166​
Jun-44​	41​	19​	56​	93​	37​	43​	5​	294​
Jul-44​	32​	27​	83​	67​	58​	69​	39​	375​
Aug-44​	3​	9​	55​	25​	2​	42​	5​	141​
Sep-44​			5​			7​		12​
Oct-44​			19​	6​	1​	11​	11​	48​
Total	164​	191​	312​	231​	207​	322​	60​	1487​

USAAF claims could take weeks to months to be awarded, creating inconsistencies, the Frank Olynyk lists are considered the best available, ones the Mediterranean Air War books had access to.

This is the second accusation of making up data, this one is obviously wrong, please provide the first example, including the reference for the relevant document claimed to prove the case.

I didn't say you made it up, I said you got it from a summary in a secondary source, which is clear that you did. It didn't occur to you those can be misleading or wrong.

I'll post the relevant pages from Shores later this afternoon, but I won't hold my breath that you will acknowledge your errors.

And failing to make the connection a book is unlikely to report the no combat days. Even after noting how during 1943 there were peaks, but not how long and low the troughs were.

I guess you aren't familiar with Shores series on the Mediterranean Air War - he covers every single day. Many others here reading the thread do have his works and are familiar with the research, which speaks for itself.

The Germans withdrew from Sardinia helped by the Italians, leaving them behind in what was Italy pre war. The Germans made a fighting withdrawal from Corsica which was French pre war, fighting between French resistance forces and the Germans began with the Italians in the middle mostly becoming Germans versus everyone else plus Free French troops sent initially by submarine.


Looked up the dictionary definition of largely?


See the data above.

It was incorrect, I already posted my data. I'll post photos of the exact pages later today.

Make the connections, after listing large numbers of USAAF fighter claims and noting they were mostly for enemy fighters, so few enemy fighters actually lost says trying to figure out the better USAAF fighters should really become why were a collective near failure, disguising this by massive over claiming, or the enemy losses figures are incorrect instead more like the ones in Williamson Murray.

B.S.

Actually what I said was it, along with the heavies and mediums were part of what was called the strategic air force, giving it a different mission profile to the other P-40 groups, this needs to be accounted for. Whether a mission was tactical or strategic is something the allied forces use, the Luftwaffe used operational.

Except, if you were familiar with the operational history, which you clearly are not, you would know that the other units were escorting medium bombers just like the 325th was - including both B-26s and B-25s, as well as British A-20 DB-7s and Baltimores which may be classified as either light or medium, and fighter bombers. All of the FG flew the same types of mission profiles, the only difference is what other units they were linked to

Actually what I said was 1 Spitfire group was assigned to the coastal air force and this needs to be accounted for, no mention of missions, note how things are generously reworded.

I just pointed out the reality, to which you took umbrage because that, old boy, is how you roll..

Please provide the list of what subjects I am supposed to know something, which usually tells more about the person making the list. Make the claim, back it up.

nice try

I encourage you to admit where you don't know all about a given subject, particularly when 1 book is the only reference. Let the anger go. I believe you'll enjoy the experience here more. As for the rest of the people that is their decision. Meantime I dislike junk history, it gets too many people killed or at least throwing away their future for or on an imagined past.

I think you play games, which have already been described. Nobody is going to get killed just because you make a fool of yourself over and over. Trust me. Otherwise the death toll would be breathtaking.

 

[tomo pauk]

Spitfire III weighed on 14 March 1940, operational trials from 18 July. Now get it into production in 1940 with Castle Bromwich behind schedule and Supermarine works bombed.

Get it into production at Westland.

Until the middle/end of 1943 when the P-47 and P-51 proved themselves in combat it was the Spitfire everyone wanted, and the latest versions as only they had consistently shown the ability to match Luftwaffe fighter performance. Anything that impeded production had to be justified.

Not tooling up two factories to make the Bothas is a good start, invest into Spitfire production instead,
Tooling up Boulton Paul for the Spitfire production ASAP would've been also a boon.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

This post by "Geoffrey"' claims 12.5 victories in the month of Jan 1944 for the 79th FG and 8 for the 33rd FG.

Claims and / losses US Fighter units flying P-40s Jan 1944 (running totals for claims / losses this time period by unit in parenthesis)

January 1944

Jan 1 - no claims or losses
Jan 2 - / 2 x P-40L 79th FG lost AAA (0/2)
Jan 3 - 7 - no claims or losses
Jan 8 - / 1 x P-40L 79th FG lost unknwn (0/3)
Jan 9 - 14 - no claims or losses
Jan 15 - / 1 x P-40L 79th FG lost AAA (0/4)
Jan 16 - US 33rd FG (P-40L) 1 x FW 19 (1/0)
Jan 17 - no claims or losses
Jan 18 - / 1 x P-40L 79th FG lost engine trouble (0/5)
Jan 19- 21 - no claims or losses
Jan 22 -79th FG (P-40L) 2 x FW 190* (2/5) / 1 x P-40L 33rd FG lost fighters (1/1), 1 x P-40F 57th FG lost AAA (0/1), 1 x P-40 324th FG lost AAA (0/1)
Jan 23 - (79th FG probable claims only, 1 FW 190 lost in the same area reportedly to P-40)
Jan 24 - 79th FG (P-40L) 1 x FW 190 & 1 x BF 109 (4/5) (two P-40s listed as damaged but made it back to base)
Jan 25 - 79th FG (P-40L) 3 x Bf 109 (7/5) / 1 US 324th FG x P-40 crash landed (0/2)
Jan 26 - / 33rd FG P-40L lost AAA (1/2)
Jan 27 - 79th FG [99th FS]** (P-40L) 10 x FW 190 (17/5), 79th FG [85th FS] 1 x FW 190 (18/5), 33rd FG (P-40L) 4 x FW 190, 3 x Bf 109 (8/2) / 79th FG [99th FS]** 2 x P-40s
Jan 28 - 79th FG (P-40L) 6 x FW 190 (24/5), 79th FG [99th FS**] (P-40L) 3 x FW 190, 1 x Bf 109 (28/5), 33rd FG (P-40L) 1 x FW 190, 5 x Bf 109, 1 x Ju 88 (15/2)
Jan 29 - 57th FG (P-40) 1 x Bf 109 (1/1)
Jan 31 - / 79th FG P-40L lost combat (28/6)

I'm not going to scan every single page, many people here have the same book, this starts on page 483 and ends on page 518. This is a scan of 28th Feb pages:

Subtotals January 1944:

79th FG 28 claims, 6 losses (of these 14 claims and 2 losses are from 99th FS)
33rd FG 15 claims, 2 losses
57th FG 1 claim, 1 loss
324th FG 2 losses

* Luftwaffe experte Otto Shulz shot down
** This is 99th FS "Tuskeegee" which was attached to various Fighter Groups in the MTO, at this time they were part of 79th FG. I counted them separately here because this may be part of the discrepancy.

As an example of escorting 'Strategic bombing' by medium bombers, on Jan 1 US 33rd FG escorted 43 x B-25s from 57th bomb wing and 73 B-26s from 42nd Bomb Wing to hit targets near Nice

 

[Shortround6]

Beware of incoming sarcasm. Not aimed at Tomo.

Get it into production at Westland.

Problem at Westland was not so much the Whirlwind production but the dire necessity of building lots and lots of Lysanders. Which were used to decimate German and Italian troops in North Africa and nearly saved Burma, India and Singapore. (Heavy Sarcasm). 1786 built. How many hundred too many?

Not tooling up two factories to make the Bothas is a good start, invest into Spitfire production instead,

Invest in anything but Bothas, even more Blenheims.
At least Blenheims didn't kill the crews quite as fast when one engine failed.

Tooling up Boulton Paul for the Spitfire production ASAP would've been also a boon.

But, But, But, that would have stripped the British of one of their most important night fighters of during the 1940/41 Blitz.
Except they actually didn't shoot down much of anything during the Blitz, a few dozen German planes at best by the end of April or May. Very few, if any, Defiant Is ever got radar. First Defiant IIs (with Merlin XX engines) started showing up in Aug 1941 and first issue with radar was late in 1941. They equipped a lot squadrons, they just didn't do much of anything.
713 Defiant Is were built which is about 650 too many even they wanted to give the turret fighter a try. Around 350 MK IIs were a waste of Merlin XX engines from Aug 1941 and later but that doesn't solve the problem of trying to build Spitfire IIIs in late 1940 or early 41. You may have the production space but you don't have the engines until later.

 

[Shortround6]

Spitfire III

It is more of an acronymic prototype than a real fighter prototype. Did it have any real guns in the early version (the 6 cannon pictures used dummy gun fairings)?
I would have reservations about the main landing covers. They worked when flying. How long they would have worked in service? Especially on less pristine airfields.
Put the small doors on the outer edge of the wheel wheels out of the mud, snow and crap. A little harder to make and rig but perhaps longer lasting and tearing the broken/malfunctioning doors off means you don't have the good aerodynamics anymore. I don't think the extra short wing gave much of a benefit. It might have needed a shortened aileron and more retooling. If anybody wants to go for the standard "clip" be my guest. Simpler to tool up for, gives most of the speed benefit, gives good roll, keeps about 12 sq ft of wing area.
Now can it be gotten into production in the winter/spring of 1940/41? How many Merlin XX engines have to stolen from Bomber command?

From Mr Sinclair 'Fighter Command squadrons 1 January 1941, 40 Hurricane to 19 Spitfire, 1 April 40:24, 1 July 30:37, 1 October 32:43, 1 January 1942 12:58.'

You need not only a new source of Spitfires starting in Nov/Dec of 1940 you need a new Merlin factory to make much of a difference. Those 40 Hurricane squadrons in Jan 1940 are not all Hurricane I squadrons. In fact it took until April of 1941 for Hurricane IIs to reach 18 squadrons, note that 'reach' does not mean totally re-equipe.
Hurricane turnover was huge. All told MK IIA and Mk IIB aircraft served with 79 squadrons. However IIC aircraft eventually served with 80 squadrons. Hurricane Is served with 90 (?) squadrons, Not at the same time and not all in the same theater.
Hurricane was kept, in part, because of the failure of the Typhoon.
A lot of British production was not either/or, or perhaps 2 dimensional. It often had a number of aspects to be considered, not the least of which was if they shut down a factory for more than few days the work force started to drift away (get jobs other places) and restarting at high production levels was not going to happen.

 

[PAT303]

My opinion is that RAF & AM allowed too many so-so or unworthy aircraft to be made, some in more than one factory (Battle, Botha), while leaving Spitfire on the most basic Merlins between mid-1940 and mid-1942, as well as relying on the pre-war legacy airframes' design instead of investing some resources and manpower to update the aerodynamics in a timely manner.
Making Hurricanes in 1943 was probably justifiable; making them in 1944 was badly wrong.

Thats always been my bugbear, both the engine and airframe builders should have been tooling up for what was needed instead of what they wanted to make, the Hurricane shouldn't have been made after 1942, the fact it still was in 1944 was a travesty.

 

[drgondog]

This post by "Geoffrey"' claims 12.5 victories in the month of Jan 1944 for the 79th FG and 8 for the 33rd FG.

Claims and / losses US Fighter units flying P-40s Jan 1944 (running totals for claims / losses this time period by unit in parenthesis)

January 1944

Jan 1 - no claims or losses
Jan 2 - / 2 x P-40L 79th FG lost AAA (0/2)
Jan 3 - 7 - no claims or losses
Jan 8 - / 1 x P-40L 79th FG lost unknwn (0/3)
Jan 9 - 14 - no claims or losses
Jan 15 - / 1 x P-40L 79th FG lost AAA (0/4)
Jan 16 - US 33rd FG (P-40L) 1 x FW 19 (1/0)
Jan 17 - no claims or losses
Jan 18 - / 1 x P-40L 79th FG lost engine trouble (0/5)
Jan 19- 21 - no claims or losses
Jan 22 -79th FG (P-40L) 2 x FW 190* (2/5) / 1 x P-40L 33rd FG lost fighters (1/1), 1 x P-40F 57th FG lost AAA (0/1), 1 x P-40 324th FG lost AAA (0/1)
Jan 23 - (79th FG probable claims only, 1 FW 190 lost in the same area reportedly to P-40)
Jan 24 - 79th FG (P-40L) 1 x FW 190 & 1 x BF 109 (4/5) (two P-40s listed as damaged but made it back to base)
Jan 25 - 79th FG (P-40L) 3 x Bf 109 (7/5) / 1 US 324th FG x P-40 crash landed (0/2)
Jan 26 - / 33rd FG P-40L lost AAA (1/2)
Jan 27 - 79th FG [99th FS]** (P-40L) 10 x FW 190 (17/5), 79th FG [85th FS] 1 x FW 190 (18/5), 33rd FG (P-40L) 4 x FW 190, 3 x Bf 109 (8/2) / 79th FG [99th FS]** 2 x P-40s
Jan 28 - 79th FG (P-40L) 6 x FW 190 (24/5), 79th FG [99th FS**] (P-40L) 3 x FW 190, 1 x Bf 109 (28/5), 33rd FG (P-40L) 1 x FW 190, 5 x Bf 109, 1 x Ju 88 (15/2)
Jan 29 - 57th FG (P-40) 1 x Bf 109 (1/1)
Jan 31 - / 79th FG P-40L lost combat (28/6)

I'm not going to scan every single page, many people here have the same book, this starts on page 483 and ends on page 518. This is a scan of 28th Feb pages:

View attachment 878664
View attachment 878662

View attachment 878663

Subtotals January 1944:

79th FG 28 claims, 6 losses (of these 14 claims and 2 losses are from 99th FS)
33rd FG 15 claims, 2 losses
57th FG 1 claim, 1 loss
324th FG 2 losses

* Luftwaffe experte Otto Shulz shot down
** This is 99th FS "Tuskeegee" which was attached to various Fighter Groups in the MTO, at this time they were part of 79th FG. I counted them separately here because this may be part of the discrepancy.

As an example of escorting 'Strategic bombing' by medium bombers, on Jan 1 US 33rd FG escorted 43 x B-25s from 57th bomb wing and 73 B-26s from 42nd Bomb Wing to hit targets near Nice

Unfortunately, you need to dive into individual squadron and HQ claims and losses to normalize against either Frank Olynyk or USAFHR tabulations - both are extended research beyond USAF Study 85.

There were a lot of moving squadron and aircraft changes in 1943-1944

 

[tomo pauk]

I don't think the extra short wing gave much of a benefit. It might have needed a shortened aileron and more retooling. If anybody wants to go for the standard "clip" be my guest. Simpler to tool up for, gives most of the speed benefit, gives good roll, keeps about 12 sq ft of wing area.

I'd just keep the old wing, plus the changes demanded from the cooler installation, as well as the landing gear.

Now can it be gotten into production in the winter/spring of 1940/41? How many Merlin XX engines have to stolen from Bomber command?

Probably yes for the 1st question.
The Merlin XX was fighters-only engine, at least looking by the real usage, so this is where from we pull the engines from (like 350 from the Defiant II production that should not happen). Bombers gotten either the Merlin X or the later Merlin 20 series with the 2-piece blocks.
Spitfire III will be just fine with the Merlin 45s, too.

You need not only a new source of Spitfires starting in Nov/Dec of 1940 you need a new Merlin factory to make much of a difference.

Three new factories making Merlins are coming on-line in that time frame.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Unfortunately, you need to dive into individual squadron and HQ claims and losses to normalize against either Frank Olynyk or USAFHR tabulations - both are extended research beyond USAF Study 85.

There were a lot of moving squadron and aircraft changes in 1943-1944

Yes, agreed, and in this case I think Shores research is more accurate and much more current, though I also have unit histories for all five fighter groups and for the 99th FS etc.

I know the Study 85 thing misses a lot of the claims and loss data for the MTO for whatever reason, I never really looked into why, but some of it I think is due to units moving from group to group (like some 57th and 33rd FG Sqns which were attached to British units, and 99th FS which moved through multiple US FG) and groups being assigned to different Air Forces (12th, 15th, DAF, NAAF etc.) I remember one summary I looked at didn't include USAF unit claims from when they were attached to British units and another one left off the HQ units claims. Several of them leave off 99th FS too for some reason.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I'd just keep the old wing, plus the changes demanded from the cooler installation, as well as the landing gear.

I'd go clipped wing plus metal ailerons as soon as possible. Improved roll rate was key to contending with FW 190

Probably yes for the 1st question.
The Merlin XX was fighters-only engine, at least looking by the real usage, so this is where from we pull the engines from (like 350 from the Defiant II production that should not happen). Bombers gotten either the Merlin X or the later Merlin 20 series with the 2-piece blocks.

Agreed, there were also 1400 Hurricane IV built in Canada, Merlin powered Beaufighters which weren't really a successful experiment, and several others.

Spitfire III will be just fine with the Merlin 45s, too.

I think much better with Merlin XX or of course, 60 series. Again due to Fw 190.

Three new factories making Merlins are coming on-line in that time frame.

 

[Shortround6]

I'd just keep the old wing, plus the changes demanded from the cooler installation, as well as the landing gear.

The standard "clip" was supposed to good for 5mph at lower altitudes. Evened out/crossed over at around 20,000ft.
Without the "clip" you are looking at the more streamlined main landing gear and the retracting tail wheel and the internal armor windscreen for aerodynamic improvements. The N3297 when flown with the Merlin XX engine had the old style non-bulged canopy. Changed when it got the Merlin 61 engine. Plane may not have had IFF aerials.

Probably yes for the 1st question.
The Merlin XX was fighters-only engine, at least looking by the real usage, so this is where from we pull the engines from (like 350 from the Defiant II production that should not happen). Bombers gotten either the Merlin X or the later Merlin 20 series with the 2-piece blocks.

This may be incorrect? RR built 28,021 XX engines total and they built another 10,627 Merlin 22s starting in 1942 and another 13,403 Merlin 24s starting in 1944(?). Not counting engines for Mosquitos. This does not count Packard production.
Only the first 75 (77?) Halifax's used Merlin X engines. After that it was Merlin XX engines until the switch to the Hercules. Lancasters got Merlin XX from the start but that was in Oct 1941 for the first production version.
It might have been possible to build more Merlin XX engines in late 1940/early 41 by not building as many Merlin X engines, But that was going to hurt Whitely and Wellington production. Changing from single speed to two speed drive engines may have been more difficult.
As mentioned before, 337 Beaufighters got Merlin XX engines.
Here a look at planning and actual use may be interesting. Bristol started planning the Merlin installation in late 1939/early 1940. The Hercules production being allocated for Striling bomber production, Bristol had planned for the Griffon as an alternative but Griffon production, what there was of it, was allocated for Firefly production (and that would up very, very late), and the Merlin was 3rd choice. Turns out that both Shorts factories were bombed by the Germans before they built more than a few Stirling's and they took months to rebuild leaving more Hercules engines available than planned. On another hand (we need more hands than a Hindu goddess) It was becoming glaring obvious that the Wellington needed more power than the Pegasus and Merlin X engines could provide.
Engine allocations could be being done over a year before production aircraft were completed. Yes, allocations could be changed but too many changes slowed done production and the British were obsessed with production.

Three new factories making Merlins are coming on-line in that time frame.

That is true but the question is when? Some factories have 3 or 4 dates.
When was the factory opened? That is when were workers making parts, this can be weeks or month before the building is actually completed. Some factories built parts to beused in by other factories for a number of months.
When did the factory build it's first complete engine?
When was the factory building large numbers of engines?
In the case of Packard it took 4 months to go from 4 engines a month to 26 engines a month in 1941, in 1942 they started at 109 engines ( 4 times the number of the previous month) but tool until the 7th month to hit 800 engines a month, the planned goal from Sept 1940. It took Packard until Sept 1943 to hit 1700 engines a month (and expanded production facilities).

The Question of the Hurricane II is hard.
In theory they should have stopped making it in 1942 (when in 1942?) but the problem was that the Typhoon, mainly because of the Sabre, was pretty much a disaster in 1942. They only built around 500 by Aug 1942 and only another 1300 by the end of 1943. With those numbers and the fact that only a blithering idiot would send Sabre powered aircraft overseas the British had a real problem. They needed something to send overseas or to Russia and that something was the Hurricane. Switching production of other factories to Spitfires may have helped. Perhaps they could have worked on a ground support Spitfire? Stronger landing gear?

 

[Shortround6]

Agreed, there were also 1400 Hurricane IV built in Canada

And here we get into changing missions. The MK IV Hurricanes were NOT fighters. They carried a single .303 gun in each wing. Most (all?) of them carried 350lbs of additional armor.
They could swap the 40mm gun pods or rockets or bombs, in practice they didn't because of different attack profiles/angles.
The IIDs had the single .303 in each wing but there was no provision for taking off the gun pods and mounting either rockets or bombs. They were gun only.
The IVs could also use a drop tank on one side and a bomb or 4 rockets on the other side for long range work.
The MK IVs were far from ideal but Spitfires were not ideal for ground attack either and the Typhoon was NOT going to fly anywhere but NW Europe.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The Question of the Hurricane II is hard.
In theory they should have stopped making it in 1942 (when in 1942?) but the problem was that the Typhoon, mainly because of the Sabre, was pretty much a disaster in 1942. They only built around 500 by Aug 1942 and only another 1300 by the end of 1943. With those numbers and the fact that only a blithering idiot would send Sabre powered aircraft overseas the British had a real problem. They needed something to send overseas or to Russia and that something was the Hurricane. Switching production of other factories to Spitfires may have helped. Perhaps they could have worked on a ground support Spitfire? Stronger landing gear?

Easy solution to this is give the Merlin XXs to Curtiss and let them build P-40Fs or Merlin XX powered P-51s, or even license build one of these two in the UK. I promise the Soviets would be much happier with either of those options than with the Hurricanes which they did use but weren't very pleased with.

Though you have a point here for a time, there is a stop gap period where they need them. But after 1942 there is really no use for Hurricanes for the Soviets, and they were barely useful in Burma / India, where Kittyhawks or P-51s would have been vastly more useful.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

And here we get into changing missions. The MK IV Hurricanes were NOT fighters. They carried a single .303 gun in each wing. Most (all?) of them carried 350lbs of additional armor.
They could swap the 40mm gun pods or rockets or bombs, in practice they didn't because of different attack profiles/angles.
The IIDs had the single .303 in each wing but there was no provision for taking off the gun pods and mounting either rockets or bombs. They were gun only.
The IVs could also use a drop tank on one side and a bomb or 4 rockets on the other side for long range work.
The MK IVs were far from ideal but Spitfires were not ideal for ground attack either and the Typhoon was NOT going to fly anywhere but NW Europe.

Pretty much same answers here. P-40s were a lot better for fighter bomber work, A-36s even more so.

Those 40mm guns on the IIDs sounded good but were fairly well a disaster when they tried to use them.

I think Hurricane IVs could be configured as a fighters though too... ? I could be wrong.

 

[yulzari]

And here we get into changing missions. The MK IV Hurricanes were NOT fighters. They carried a single .303 gun in each wing. Most (all?) of them carried 350lbs of additional armor.
They could swap the 40mm gun pods or rockets or bombs, in practice they didn't because of different attack profiles/angles.
The IIDs had the single .303 in each wing but there was no provision for taking off the gun pods and mounting either rockets or bombs. They were gun only.
The IVs could also use a drop tank on one side and a bomb or 4 rockets on the other side for long range work.
The MK IVs were far from ideal but Spitfires were not ideal for ground attack either and the Typhoon was NOT going to fly anywhere but NW Europe.

The Hurricane MkIV was still the RAF air defence of Cyprus in 1946.

 

[Shortround6]

Easy solution to this is give the Merlin XXs to Curtiss and let them build P-40Fs or Merlin XX powered P-51s, or even license build one of these two in the UK. I promise the Soviets would be much happier with either of those options than with the Hurricanes which they did use but weren't very pleased with.

Though you have a point here for a time, there is a stop gap period where they need them. But after 1942 there is really no use for Hurricanes for the Soviets, and they were barely useful in Burma / India, where Kittyhawks or P-51s would have been vastly more useful.

Now you just have to build a much larger plant in the US to build more P-40s and come up with thousands of workers. Or 'just' come up with a new plant in in the UK. You can't make P-40s in a Hawker or Gloster factory that was building Hurricanes, or at least not anywhere near as many per month. Add in the fact that it took a number of months to change over/retool and just about all the tooling would have to be shipped in from the US.
Building P-40Ls with Merlins in mid 1943 and later instead of P-40Ns with Allisons doesn't really change things that much.
Problem for the British barely useful beats the heck out of no aircraft at all for certain months.
British got a very large amount of P-40Ms and Ns as it was.
"Just on time" delivery of components is a fairly modern concept. If you are trying to build 200-400 fighters a month in a factory they wanted several weeks or months' worth of engines on site "just in case". Problems at the engine factory, problems with transportation (mostly railroads in WW II) problems with weather (Detroit, Indianapolis, Buffalo NY). Moving engines from Detroit to Los Angeles was over 2000 miles by rail. In 1943 you can pretty much forget truck.
Shipping engines to England was lot risker. Beauforts stayed with Taurus engines after the first 200 P&W engines got sunk in transit. Poor engines beats no engines.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The Hurricane MkIV was still the RAF air defence of Cyprus in 1946.

That's incredible