Bf-109 vs P-40 (1 Viewer)

[fastmongrel]

The Bf 109 for sure; no contest.

Yet for some strange reason it was a contest and one that the P40 sometimes won.

 

[Glider]

Yet for some strange reason it was a contest and one that the P40 sometimes won.

Sometimes yes, frequently no

 

[Schweik]

Sometimes yes, frequently no

I have read this and many other similar threads with great interest over the years, and I hope I will be forgiven for commenting here and reviving this old thread with what I think is some new data.

In the past when these types of discussions were conducted we really had to guess as to the nature of these matchups. There was no hard data on things like turn rates, handling, comparative maneuverability between types, or most importantly, actual records of claims vs. real losses, as opposed to mere (unsubstantiated) victory claims. As a result we were forced to contend with competing anecdotes, a few rare descriptions by veterans, and amateur physics models.

Now however as more and more data continues to emerge from the surviving records of WW2, we are seeing new types of publications becoming available, such as the Black Cross / Red Star series by Christer Bergström (et al), vols 1-4, and the even more useful and impressive A History of the Mediterranean Air War series by Christopher Shores (et al), volumes 1-3 so far with volume 4 imminent.

These books break down casualties as well as claims and both squadron and personal accounts, with Shores Mediterranean books in particular providing very helpful summaries at the end of the entry for each day in the conflict, summarizing claims vs. actual losses for all sides involved in combat. In addition there are useful excerpts from aces on both sides.

I have volumes 1-3 of Black Cross and volumes 2 and 3 of Air War (i'll be getting Vol 1 soon and Vol 4 as soon as it's available), and I have been reviewing them casually prior to a more rigorous analysis. I thought it might be useful and perhaps appreciated if I shared some observations so far - these are based on Shores Books on the Med.

Problems for P-40 pilots

1. The main problem faced by P-40 pilots of all air forces (RAF, RAAF, SAAF, Free French and USAAF) was by far the effective altitude ceiling. The vast majority of engagements would start with a German attack which was a serious problem. In 1941 and most of 1942 Luftwaffe units were able to hunt DAF units at their leisure and engage or disengage at will.
   
2. The second most serious problem faced by Commonwealth pilots in particular was tactical. The English were using a variety of ineffective formations which German pilots were extremely critical of, and tended to fly at lower altitude than their operational ceilings allowed. They also went into defensive circles as a way to defend against attacks from above.
   
3. The third most serious problem faced by all DAF pilots, but Commonwealth pilots in particular, was training. Most Commonwealth pilots seem to have been fairly poorly trained particularly on the type. Many had never been trained in aerial gunnery at all for example, and few even realized that they could pull G's on their aircraft, what exactly were their limits of maneuverability or what the structural limits were in turns or dives.
   
4. Early P-40's notably the earlier series P-40E / Kittyhawk I had problems with jamming or stoppages with their guns because of the way the ammunition was stowed. This seems to have been addressed by around mid -1942 but again, it cost many lives.

How the problems were dealt with

• The last two issues mentioned, gunnery and extreme maneuvering, were gradually worked out by key individuals - often aces, and then disseminated to the squadrons though not always efficiently or equally shared. Clive Caldwell for example figured out how to practice gunnery by shooting at shadows on the ground and taught this technique to other members of 112 squadron. Nicky Barr, a former rugby player, figured out he could withstand high-G's and took the risk of making very sharp turns in the P-40, learning in the process that the P-40 could turn well. He shared this with his squadron mates who started taking more advantage of the P-40's maneuverability.
  
• DAF very gradually improved their formations, but it wasn't until the USAAF units began arriving in Tunisia in 1942 that the switch to 'Finger four' and two pairs (or in some variants, three pairs) had been made. Commonwealth squadrons still seem to have flown at relatively low altitude but did become more aggressive as they switched to Kittyhawk II and III types with more power.
• Overboosting of engines seems to have been rare at first but increasingly common. The P-40K was similar to the P-40E but had a strengthened crank shaft more able to withstand high boost (57" mercury) which was standard WEP setting on the P-40K.
• P-40F/L were also sometimes overboosted, posisbly to 60"
  
• P-40 pilots also reported using flaps to achieve even tighter turns.
• DAF pilots developed tactics for 'skidding' to avoid being hit when attacked from above. There are some detailed descriptions of this and it seemed to be an effective tactic.

Units
There was a wide disparity in success or failure between different P-40 units.

• All the SAAF units did poorly with the P-40 (some worse than others) and also tended to get the older models. One SAAF squadron was still using Tomahawk / P-40C until the end of 1942 for example (facing by then Me 109F-4 and G-2). They also tended to get the Fighter-Bomber assignments which were more dangerous. They suffered very high losses.
  
• In terms of losses to confirmed (by the German records) victories, the best Commonwealth squadrons were 112 RAF, 3 RAAF, 260 RAF, 250 RAF, and 450 RAAF, roughly in that order. These units also got the newer versions of the P-40 earlier, i.e. they were flying Mk II (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) or Mk III Kittyhawks when other Commonwealth fighters were still flying Kittyhawk I.
  
• The USAAF P-40 squadrons (33rd FG, 79th FG, 324 FG, and 325 FG) seem to have done better than the Commonwealth units somewhat surprisingly, probably due to flying the more high powered (P-40F/L and K) versions - with a higher ceiling- and due to using finger 4 / pairs formation similar to what the Germans did. Also possibly due to flying more escort missions of medium bombers (B-25's and A-20's) than riskier fighter-bomber missions, though they did both.

Characteristics of the aircraft
All pilots seemed to agree, P-40 turned better and dove faster, Me 109 climbed and accelerated better and had a higher effective altitude.

• It's worth remembering that there were many types of front-line aircraft engaged in the theater, and performance varied considerably. In terms of functional differences the main fighter types included Hurricane I, IIb, IIc and IId (anti-tank); Tomahawk / P-40B (used only by Commonwealth units), Kittyhawk I (used only by commonwealth units), Kittyhawk II and IIe (P-40 F/L) and Kittyhawk III (P-40K, though some may have been less powerful P-40M) and later P-38F and L, P-39, and Spit V and IX. The Luftwaffe used 109E4 through E7, 109F-2 an F-4, G-2, G-4 and G-6 in the Med, Bf 110, and toward the end also some Fw 190. The Italians had Mc 200 and Mc 202, with a small number of Re 2000 series and some MC 205 engaged toward the end.
  
• All of the pilots interviewed in both volumes, DAF or German, including many who disliked the P-40, acknowledged that the P-40 was more maneuverable than the Me 109 (and the MC 202) and could easily out-turn the Me 109. The German solution was to hit and run from above. P-40's could also escape Me 109's, at least temporarily, in a dive, though the G series planes could catch them eventually. On the deck the fight was more equal.
  
• The single most important advantage the Me 109 had (all types) was the performance ceiling. The biggest comparative advantage the Merlin engined P-40F / Kittyhawk II types over all the Allison engined types had was their performance ceiling was ~ 20k feet.
• Higher performance P-40 variants, Kittyhawk II and III, were able to catch Me 109's trying hit and run tactics more often.
  
• On escort missions, where the 109's were forced to engage with the P-40's in a sustained manner, the P-40's more often came out on top.
  
• I think the problem with the Hurricanes was that they could not disengage by diving and had too poor of a roll rate. P-38's, due to problems with the earlier types, also seem to have been unable to disengage by diving and seemed to be eventually relegated to escorting high altitude / long range heavy bombers at least to some extent.

Comparisons of losses by type
It's not always 100% clear what constitutes a loss. Shores indicates what the records say: DAF reports "shot down", or crash land or force landing, or damage Cat I, II or III, Germans say "Shot down" or sometimes "blown up" and crash or forced landing, and damage by percentage, and both sides indicate if the pilot was WIA, MIA, KIA, or POW, (or sometimes temporarily POW and returned a day or two later as seemed to often happen). Italians used 'FTR' (Failed to Return) a lot. As a general rule I was saying provisionally that if an aircraft was damaged 50% or Cat 2 and was not able to make it to base, or if the pilot bailed out or was KIA, MIA / FTR or POW, then it's shot down. If it landed on a friendly base with less than 50% damage and the pilot was not wounded then it is not. This is of course debatable though. I plan to go through and put all the numbers into a spreadsheet or database but haven't had the time yet. Both sides also sometimes indicate what type of aircraft they think shot them down but not always accurately.

• Based on losses reported, the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk I flown by a competent pilot could handle 109E, but suffered high losses against the 109F. I haven't analyzed the numbers but very generally speaking about even (1-1) for the former vs. about 1-4 against for the latter. This varied a great deal by squadron though, 112 squadron for example looks like it was about close to even against the 109F even with the Tomahawk or Kittyhawk I (maybe 1-1 or 1-2) whereas the SAAF squadrons were probably like 1-5 or 1-6. I haven't crunched the numbers yet though so this is just a guess.
  
• Kittyhawk II (P-40 F/L) and Kittyhawk III did much better were close to even against the 109F and G series. But this also depends on the squadrons.
  
• All pilots interviewed, German, Commonwealth or American, acknowledged that all variants of the P-40 were superior to the Hurricane.
• Hurricanes had poor combat records after mid 1941 when German aircraft started arriving in numbers. They did poorly against the 109, sometimes they got kills but they suffered catastrophic losses.
  
• Spit V (both US and Commonwealth) units did 'ok' against the 109, maybe about even or 1-2, but not as well as you would expect.
  
• Spit IX did very well, best in the Theater, probably 2-1 vs 109 or MC 202.
• USAAF (and later Free French) P-39's did terribly. Very few if any victories.
• USAAF P-38's did mediocre, probably 1-3 vs. Luftwaffe.
• MC 202 seems to have done pretty well most of the time. Fairly low losses anyway.
• Fw 190 didn't do as well as you would expect, probably not that many flying.
  
• I'm not certain yet but I am 'pretty sure' so far that P-40's shot down more Me 109's over North Africa than any other type, but they also lost more than they shot down.

Overclaiming and misidentification

• All sides overclaimed, though DAF seems to have been a little worse than Luftwaffe. JG 27 also overclaimed, one Rotte in particular was even investigated for it by the Luftwaffe.
• Luftwaffe pilots including Marseilles often reported shooting down P-40's when they had in fact shot down Hurricanes.
• Mariseilles seems to have done some overclaiming but probably unintentional.
  
• Luftwaffe pilots also often reported that they were fighting non-existant P-46 or Spitfires when they were fighting later mark P-40's (II or III).
• DAF fighters often reported shooting down Me 109's when they had in fact shot down MC 200 or MC 202.

Sometimes the P-40's came out on top

• The most common thing was for the Luftwaffe to win but take some losses, particularly in 1941 through 1942. Things gradually began to shift in the DAF favor in 1943.
• By late 1942 Spitfires and P-38's are on the scene so it can be hard to say for sure who shot down what plane.
  
• However, having not read all of both books yet, so far I've run across 5 days where it's clear that P-40's decisively defeated Me 109's. All five days were on days where no Spitfires or P-38's were operational in the area where Me 109's were lost (or at least, they didn't make any claims) and P-40's engaged Me 109's in some numbers. Three of these were USAAF (IIRC 33rd FG, 57th and 79th FG) and on two of these days Commonwealth (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) vs. Me 109's from Jg 77 and on one occasion JG 27.
• One of these days involved significant overclaiming by the Luftwaffe, with USAAF reporting 7 kills and actually shooting down 6, while Luftwaffe reported 8 and actually shot down 1. On another day - I have the book with me right now so I'm looking it up; Wednesday Dec 30 1942, 15 Me 109's attacked 7 Kittyhawk IIa from 3 RAAF and lost two (3 RAAF claimed 4). For the whole day DAF shot down 4 Me 109's (3 Me 109 G-2 Trop and 1 Me 109F-4) with 2 pilots Edgar Cerne and Erich Gassel KIA, and Gunter MIelenz POW. DAF suffered no losses that day. James "Stocky" Edwards also made two claims that day fighting with 260 RAF.
  
• All 5 of these cases were with later mark P-40's (P-40 F/L or K)

I hope this is informative to anyone reading the thread. I plan to provide more data from the books including, if anyone is interested, some of the other specific anecdotes on specific days.

S.

 

[Schweik]

So here is another incident.
Monday, 29 March 1943 ("History of the Mediterranean Air War", Shores et al, Volume 3, pages 414-415 Vol III

P-40L's of the 33rd Fighter Group's 59th Squadron set off at 0733 to provide escort for [B-25] medium members in an attack on La Fauconnerie landing ground, and 24 more Warhawks from the 58th and 60th Squadrons [also 33 FG] flew a reconnaissance sweep over the same area. Bf 109's [from II. and III./JG 77] jumped the 58th, but with the help of the 60th seven German fighters were claimed by the Americans, One P-40 was shot down, and a second was reported to have been hit by groundfire. JG 77 recorded the loss of six Bf 109's, three shot down and three crash landed. JG 77 claimed 5 victories, so significant overclaiming.

German casualties from the incident were as follows:

BF 109G-6 trop WNR 16373 shot down by P40 1km S la Fauconnerie, Lt Gunter Schimmelpfennig KIA
BF 109G-6 trop WNR 16449 White 4 + combat P-40, crash landed Fw Siegfried Grimm safe
BF 109G-4 trop WNr crash landed La Fauconnerie, pilot safe
BF 109G-2 trop WNr 10707 Black 9 shot down 5km S La Fauconnerie, Uffz Rolf Fischer KIA
BF 109G-2 trop WNr 10765 crash landed after combat , 70% damage pilot safe
BF 109G-2 trop WNr 10490 Yellow 11 lost Uffz Ewald Blkeul KIA

 

[Schweik]

Here is one more

Wednesday 24 March 1943 - 33rd Fighter Group vs. JG 77

This is a direct quote from Shores Vol III, page 405

"At 0940 I./JG 77 scrambled 13 BF 109s to intercept a raid by 18 B-25s of the 321st Bomb Group which were being escorted by the P-40's of the 58th and 59th squadrons of the 33rd Fighter Group to attack Tebaga North airfield north west of Gabes. The Messerschmitts jumped the formation before the target and followed the US aircraft all the way back to their base, keeping up a running fight, claiming two B-25's and six of the escorting warhawks all in the area north and west of Fatnassa.

During the fight it was reported by some German pilots that two of the US fighters were seen to be very well-flown, and were in combat with seven Bf 109s, the pilots of which were unable to shoot them down. Hptm Heniz Bar, Kommander of I.Gruppe, after watching with increasing disgust the efforts of his subordinates, roared over the radio "Las mich mal ran, du blode Sau!" (Let me do it, you bloody swine!), taking up the chase and reportedly shooting down both American fighters in flames from about 1,000 feet altitude. However, losses recorded by 33rd Figther Group do not appear to support this story on this date."

Understatement, in my opinion. If it hadn't been for Shores numbers from the German casualty logs at the end, this would have been a typical German anecdote of brushing aside valiant but ultimately doomed enemy opposition. Most readers would have assumed it was all true, even though it clearly wasn't.

German pilots from JG 77 claimed 7 P-40's on that day, Bar claiming two personally. Plus a Spitfire and two B-25's. A German pilot from 5/JG 51 also claimed a Spitfire.

P-40L pilots from 33 FG claimed 10 Bf 109's and 7 damaged and 1 probable

Actual US losses were two P-39L (one hit by friendly flak), one B-25, one B-26, and one Spitfire (the US 52nd FG was engaged on the same day in a different area -E Maknassy- and made 3 claims) and one P-40L "damaged by BF 109, belly landed and burned, 2/Lt Robertg P. Kanter returned).

Losses for the Germans were 7 Bf 109's, a Ju 88 and an Fi 156:

BF 109G-4 trop WNr 16244 shot down SW Mateur, pilot bailed out WiA
BF 109G-4 trop WNr 16198 Black 5 + lost for u/k reason NE porto Farina pilot bailed but MiA
BF 109G-6 trop WNr 16335 Yellow 5 = lost for u/k reason pilot MiA
BF 109G-4 trop WNr 16356 50% damaged in combat near Gabes, pilot safe
BF 109G-2 trop WNr 10750 Black 5 + destroyed in combat 30km SE Fatnassa; pilot WIA
BF 109G-2 WNr 14525 Black 7 + combat with Spitfire, force landed near Maknassy, destroyed pilot POW*
BF 109G-2 trop WNr 10800 Yellow 5 + shot down by P-40 WNW Bou Thadi, pilot KIA

Plus a Ju 88 which doesn't appear to be claimed and a Fiesler Storch shot down by P-39's
* this one was probably shot down by a Spitfire due to the area mentioned.

The TL DR is P-40L pilots from 33 FG shot down 6 BF 109's (with 5 pilots either Missing or casualties) for the loss of 1 P-40 (crash landed, pilot safe)

Overclaiming: The US pilots claimed 10 and got 6, whereas the Germans claimed 7 and got 1.

S

 

[Schweik]

Here is another one. This one is from Shores volume II, Pp 469-470

Tuesday 8 December 1942

12 P-40K's of 64 sqn 57th FG (3 actually flown by pilots from 79th FG) took off for a fighter bomber attack vs, "Marble Arch" (Arco Philaenorum) airfield (Libya) escorted by 12 P-40F's (from 65 sqn / 57th) flying as high cover. They were attacked by Me 109's of JG 77, some of which took off from the field and ttacked the fighter bombers, and some which were flying CAP and attacked the top cover.

57th FG P-40's claimed 7 Me 109's shot down plus 4 damaged, 2 claims by the P-40F's of 65 squadron (both by Lt. Arnold Jaqua) and 5 by 64th Squadron's P-40K's.

JG 77 Me 109 pilots claimed 4 P-40's shot down.

Actual losses were 4 me 109's and 1 P-40 (P-40F Lt. William Taylor KIA) plus another P-40K crash-landing "badly damaged" at the base, it's pilot Lt George Moobs, who claimed 2 of the victories that day, reported a harrowing running fight with 5 me 109s during which he was wounded by a cannon shell in the leg.

German losses were:

BF 109G-2 Trop WNr 10520 blown up at Arco Philaenorum
BF 109G-2 Trop WNr 14251 Yellow 3 combat with P 40, crash landed at Arco Philaenorum 100% damage, pilot WIA died on the 9th
BF 109G-2 Trop Yellow 7 crash landed Arco Philaenorum pilot safe
BF 109G-2 Trop WNr 13823 combat, crashed into sea N. Arco Philaenorum, pilot KIA

TL DR P-40F and K pilots (mostly K) claimed 7 / shot down 4, BF 109 pilots claimed 4 / shot down 1 +1 heavily damaged.

S

 

[Stig1207]

Monday, 29 March 1943

Correct, except 2 of the the c/l 109's are recorded damaged 20% in MAWIII

Wednesday 24 March 1943

This one is more difficult, as MAWIII mentions only I/Jg77 as engaged in this fight. WNr 10750 Wolfmeier of 2./Jg77 is the only 109 belonging to this Gruppe.
WNR. 16356,10750,10800 all belong to III/Jg77 , they are lost in the general area, and 10800 Jahn is attributed to a P-40, However, 52nd FG ia also claiming in this area where these aircraft are lost or damaged, though later in the afternoon. WNr. 14525 which loss is attributed to a Spitfire is also an III/ Jg77 aircraft. As no times are mentioned for these losses, and since the 52nd FG combat isn't mentioned in the main text, it's a bit difficult to say whether III/Jg77 was also involved in the fight with 33rd FG.

WNr. 16244 of 4./Jg53 and 16198 of 5./Jg53 were both lost 350-370 km to the north, again no times given and not mentioned in the text.

Wnr 16355 and 15112 of 6/Jg.27 are not mentioned either in the main text, but the unit was based at Trapani some 550 km from the scene of the engagement; so not knowing what their mission was, it's a bit doubtful including them among 33rd FG's victories.

Tuesday 8 December 1942

This one too is a little confusing, as MAWII in the main text has WNr. 14251 Häcker as shot down by Ft Lt Ingram of 601 Sqd, but in the summary attributes the loss to a P-40.
WNr. 10520 was 'blown up' and there is no pilot casualty, so it might indicate that it was destroyed on the ground?

 

[Schweik]

Correct, except 2 of the the c/l 109's are recorded damaged 20% in MAWIII

Yes, I mentioned this in the post above - 3 shot down and 3 crash landed, per German records, only one of the latter probably a writeoff. They had the luxury of fighting directly over their own base in this particular case which is what I would attribute to the relatively light damage; i.e. you need considerably less luck to manage a reasonable dead-stick landing on an actual airfield with a blown engine vs. trying to land on the wild terrain.

Both entries from the German reports specifically used the word "crash landed" in this case which to me sounds like the planes were not able to continue the fight. As I said in my first post, it is difficult sometimes to determine what qualifies as a victory in every case. But regardless of whether you count 6 or 4, for the loss of 1 P-40 to fighters, it seems like a pretty bad day for the Germans.

Conversely the one P-40 flown by Charles King which also "crash-landed" in this engagement caught on fire, probably because he landed on rough terrain.

This one is more difficult, as MAWIII mentions only I/Jg77 as engaged in this fight. WNr 10750 Wolfmeier of 2./Jg77 is the only 109 belonging to this Gruppe.
WNR. 16356,10750,10800 all belong to III/Jg77 , they are lost in the general area, and 10800 Jahn is attributed to a P-40, However, 52nd FG ia also claiming in this area where these aircraft are lost or damaged, though later in the afternoon. WNr. 14525 which loss is attributed to a Spitfire is also an III/ Jg77 aircraft. As no times are mentioned for these losses, and since the 52nd FG combat isn't mentioned in the main text, it's a bit difficult to say whether III/Jg77 was also involved in the fight with 33rd FG.

I think you are reaching a little bit here. If you read the book, the typical pattern was for one squadron to initially get engaged (in this case I/JG 77) and then a second and sometimes a third or other Gruppe elements to join in if the fight goes on. For example in the 29 March 1943 incident II/JG 77 attacked and were later supported by III/JG 77. This is a pattern which repeats itself throughout the book, it seemed to be standard practice for the Germans. In this case Shores says the fight continued all the way back to the American base so it makes sense that other elements joined in. .

WNr. 16244 of 4./Jg53 and 16198 of 5./Jg53 were both lost 150-200km to the north, again no times given and not mentioned in the text.

Wnr 16355 and 15112 of 6/Jg.27 are not mentioned either in the main text, but the unit was based at Trapani some 450-500 km from the scene of the engagement; so not knowing what their mission was, it's a bit doubtful including them among 33rd FG's victories.

Well if you read the text, Shores mentions that per both German and American sources, the engagement lasted a long time and was a 'running battle' starting in the vicinity of the German base and continuing all the way back to the American base. The Germans also indicated that they had trouble with the Americans (before Hptm Heniz Bar claimed to shoot down two P-40's that he clearly did not). According to the German source at one point in the battle 7 Bf 109's were engaged with just two of the 33 FG P-40's which sounds like just one part of a significant sized engagement.

All in all, it seems less likely to me that of the 7 Me 109's lost that day were shot down by the Spitfires of 52 FG than by 33 FG. The 52nd only claimed 3 BF 109 and 1 Fw 190, three in the Maknassy area and 1 in Gabes, while 33 FG claimed 10 +8 damaged. Only one of the German losses was reported in the Maknassy area- which is the one I attributed to the Spit from 52 FG, and the one WNW of Bou Thadi was reported by the Germans as being shot down by a P-40.

Per the text on Pg 407 (Vol 3) Shores mentions that the 33 FG was supporting a raid by the 321st Bomb Group "to attack Tebaga North Airfield north-west of Gabes. The Messserschmitts jumped the formation before the target and followed the US aircraft all the way up to their base, keeping up a running fight, claiming two B-25's and about six of the escorting Warhawks, all in the area north and west of Fatnassa."

This one too is a little confusing, as MAWII in the main text has WNr. 14251 Häcker as shot down by Ft Lt Ingram of 601 Sqd, but in the summary attributes the loss to a P-40.

That summary is from the German sources. They were not always correct though, it's just what the pilot reported. They seem to have often thought they were fighting P-40's.

WNr. 10520 was 'blown up' and there is no pilot casualty, so it might indicate that it was destroyed on the ground?

Again, I think you are reaching a little - it could mean that, but if you read the books the Germans typically specify "destroyed on the ground" or "destroyed by bombs / strafing" etc. when aircraft was destroyed on the ground. "Blown up" is frequently used outside of the context of any bombing raid, though in this case there also was one. They also don't always mention the pilot name.

All in all though, what you are really doing here is just contesting the magnitude of the German defeats I posted so far. The Luftwaffe clearly overclaimed and they clearly came out on the losing end of all of these engagements with P-40's in all four of the incidents I posted so far, or are you contesting that ?

S

 

[Glider]

What I think is more interesting is how many engagements went in the Germans favour, against the four you have found in favour of the P40, the result is a lot more..

Example, I know of one air to air engagement in the six day war that the Jordanian air force won, but it doesn't alter that fact that the Jordanians were on the losing side overall.

 

[Schweik]

What I think is more interesting is how many engagements went in the Germans favour, against the four you have found in favour of the P40, the result is a lot more..

Example, I know of one air to air engagement in the six day war that the Jordanian air force won, but it doesn't alter that fact that the Jordanians were on the losing side overall.

Well, did you read the book? Because right now I'm not sure that the later model P-40 comes out behind, at least not in the American squadrons. And lets do try to remember, unlike the Jordanians, the Allies won the war. The DAF won the war in North Africa and the Med. Not the Germans. Some of you guys don't seem to grasp that.

The pattern i see is that the P-40 C / E was able to handle the Me 109E, but had problems against the Me 109F. The later model P40's however, when flown properly, seem to have been much more even against both the 109F and the 109G series fighters.

I.e. there are indeed a lot of engagements in 1941 and into the fall of 1942 where the Germans came out decisively on top fighting Me 109F or G against Tomahawk or Kitthyawk MK 1 (P-40 C or E), but against the later model P-40's (Kitthawk Mk II/III / P-40F/L or K) and especially against the US squadrons, they don't seem to have done as well.

Most of those engagements involve some losses on both sides but no clear-cut winner. I think I ran across two or three so far where the American squadrons flying P-40F or K decisively lost, but no more than that - I think I've found more where it was the opposite. I'll have to go through, I've been marking decisive engagement either way with colored post-its. Most of the 33FG and 57th FG losses so far seem to have been to Flak or ground fire.

But contrary to your assumption, the reason I only posted 4 examples so far (like I said, I actually found 5, actually more like 7 now but I haven't had time to transcribe them all and go over them for the details) is because most of the others were just inconclusive. They involved multiple types of aircraft, with both Commonwealth and US units, and sometimes Hurricanes, P-38's, Spit V and / or Spit IX as well. And also sometimes Italian fighters - I have found one case where MC 202 were decisively defeated by DAF P-40's in Vol 2 but that belongs in another thread I guess.

Of course we will get more engagements between USAAF P-40 squadrons and Luftwaffe fighters in Volume IV which is due out soon, some time later this spring or summer I think. That is when we will see the big dogfights around Pantelleria, Sardania, Sicily etc. . I'm looking forward to that.

The gist though to me is, though the P-40 pilots usually were put in the unenviable position of being forced to counter-attack in order to get kills, whenever the Me 109's attacked them from above, they still got kills. That itself is quite telling. If the P-40 was as inferior as many in this thread claimed you would think that would never happen. If for example, they couldn't outmaneuver Me 109s (an incredible assertion to me when every single German, British and American pilot in the book says they could easily do so) how the hell did they ever shoot any down?

When later model P-40's caught German planes down low, or were able to attack from above or from equal altitude, they seem to have done very well. That is what I'm seeing - that is the common denominator in the cases mentioned so far, except for the Dec 30 1942 one which seems to have been a counter attack. This particular incident was fairly early in the days of the DAF were using the more powerful P-40K models and the Germans may have been expecting the slower P-40E's they had become accustomed to. The Germans often misidentified P-40K or F/L models as "P-46" or as Spitfires, obviously due to the enhanced maneuverability.

S

 

[Stig1207]

All in all though, what you are really doing here is just contesting the magnitude of the German defeats I posted so far. The Luftwaffe clearly overclaimed and they clearly came out on the losing end of all of these engagements with P-40's in all four of the incidents I posted so far, or are you contesting that ?

No, just pointing out that the source we both are using is not clear about what actually happened, what units were involved, what times the Lw losses occurred, etc. Well written and researched as the MAW series is, it's not without it's faults and you often are left guessing; not surprising, it is after all a difficult subject. Therefore I think some of your conclusions are not beyond challenge.

 

[Schweik]

No, just pointing out that the source we both are using is not clear about what actually happened, what units were involved, what times the Lw losses occurred, etc. Well written and researched as the MAW series is, it's not without it's faults and you often are left guessing; not surprising, it is after all a difficult subject. Therefore I think some of your conclusions are not beyond challenge.

Of course, it's a complex subject, with many sources - nothing is beyond challenge. Some of these battles (I'll post a typical example later of a really wild one) may involve Air assets from 5 countries, with 10 different types of aircraft, with multiple accidents, aircraft destroyed by flak or ground fire, friendly fire all kinds of stuff.

So for any one day, you can pick it apart and question every detail, and try to impose whatever pattern you prefer.

However, while not perfect this series of books is an incredibly well researched and very rich data source, one in which you can clearly see patterns over time, over each days activities. If if you have this series of books yourself, which I assume you do since you are referring to it in detail, you can see many of the patterns I'm referring to. For example, it does not appear to me that the American P-40 squadron were getting slaughtered or even beat up by Me 109 squadrons.

To assume otherwise, we would have to invent a specific and unlikely scenario -

1) That Christopher Shores or his colleagues are biased in favor of P-40's (I would say actually the opposite - I think he makes it abundantly clear he doesn't like them)
2) That US P-40 squadrons overclaimed three or four times more than their colleagues in P-38 and Spitfire V squadrons...
3) ... AND simultaneously that in the same battles the Luftwaffe pilots themselves incorrectly attributed their losses to P-40's when in fact they were shot down by some other aircraft.

Of course the latter is certainly possible. All of them are possible, and in any one incident they could be in play. But it's unlikely when you consider dozens of incidents over time. I plan to enter every days' activities into a database and once that is done, more patterns should be clear, and to be honest at this point I haven't even read all of both books.

But at this point it does appear to me that the theories about the extreme inferiority of later model P-40's to Me 109's are hyperbolic to say the least.

A little bit of context
Post World War II the P-40 had a really bad reputation, for a variety of reasons including scandals with Curtiss aircraft company (and the Truman Report) as well as the inherent performance limitations (esp. alt ceiling) of the aircraft which prevented it from being used in the most important Theaters. The Trope became that the P-40 was slow and ungainly, but 'rugged and a good fighter bomber'. The first and for decades, sole exception to this was the AVG record which was treated as an outlier.

In the late 20th Century, some evidence of exceptions to this "rule" - in Burma, in Australian and New Zealand use in the Pacific etc., started to undermine the trope. These were explained away as more outliers plus whispers about overclaiming. In the 'oughts the Soviet data started to emerge, and the testimony of guys like Golodnikov, which again put into question the supposed extreme inferiority of the P-40. Data also emerged from some US P-40 units operating in the Med, like the 325th FG and 57 FG, further calling into question the trope of invincible Luftwaffe fighters and hapless P-40's (and every other allied type except for the Spitfire). Similarly, we learned that P-39's were not exclusively used for ground attack by the Soviets, we learned of the Finnish successes with various "bad" aircraft types and so on.

We have also seen a general revision of understanding of many aspects of the war - David Glantz's work on the Russian Front for example, which has called into question many aspects of German accounts that we had previously accepted as verbatim.

Specific to the subject of this thread, we now know that probably at least ~300 allied pilots in various air forces made "Ace" in P-40's, according to their "confirmed" victory claims.

However, this led to a hue and cry from defenders of The Trope, that allegedly, the victories were not real. Soviet fighter pilots apparently never shot down any German aircraft and all their claims were lies. DAF pilots overclaimed massively (except when flying Spits). US squadrons fighting in the Med overclaimed beyond belief. US (and Aussie and NZ) squadrons in the Pacific and Burma overclaimed even more. The only air forces which didn't overclaim were the Japanese and -especially- the Luftwaffe. No experten ever claimed to shoot down an enemy aircraft incorrectly.

Well, one thing that Shores books do, and also to some extent the Black Cross / Red Star series, is start to test this new variation of The Trope. How much overclaiming was there, precisely, and by whom?

What the data is already starting to show us, or shows me so far anyway, is that the Luftwaffe did overclaim, sometimes quite a bit, and the Luftwaffe did take serious losses. We know that Me 109's shot down a lot of P-40's, but it's also true (if to a lesser extent), P-40's shot down a lot of me 109's. I think you can say that purely on the basis of the Germans own self-reported losses (what kind of aircraft the pilots reported that they or their comrades were shot down by). But if you extrapolate between the Allied claims and the German losses it looks more like later model P-40's in particular could hold their own.

The precise details of all this are still emerging, not only in terms of analyzing the remarkable research done so far but also in anticipating Vol IV of Shores massive Med endeavor. It's likely of course, that a new version of The Trope will emerge, but each incarnation strains credulity a bit more.

There are also some interesting patterns regarding Luftwaffe activity more generally which are apparent, that I think some people would be interested in.

S

 

[wlewisiii]

Regarding the P-40 & it's reputation, I'd like to point to a video I posted previously on flying the P-40E by the late Jeff Ethel:

(REVISED) Most Formidable Low-Med Altitude Fighter Aircraft

 

[Stig1207]

However, this led to a hue and cry from defenders of The Trope, that allegedly, the victories were not real. Soviet fighter pilots apparently never shot down any German aircraft and all their claims were lies. DAF pilots overclaimed massively (except when flying Spits). US squadrons fighting in the Med overclaimed beyond belief. US (and Aussie and NZ) squadrons in the Pacific and Burma overclaimed even more. The only air forces which didn't overclaim were the Japanese and -especially- the Luftwaffe. No experten ever claimed to shoot down an enemy aircraft incorrectly.

I don't know who these 'defenders' are, but you are exaggerating absurdly here. Just to be clear, I harbour no illusions as to how universal overclaiming was , and didn't depend on the the markings the aircraft carried.

Now if we stick with the examples you posted from MAW, and in particular the one for 24th March, as that is the most troubling one:
I cannot say that you are wrong in your analysis of the 33rd FG's performance in this action, simply because the details provided by the Shores et al, are lacking. I will however, submit that it is possible that the 2 Jg 53 and 2 Jg 27 losses had nothing to do with the engagement, as I pointed out in my earlier post. It is also possible that some or all of the III/ Jg77 were lost during the fight with the 33rd, but it is also possible that they were lost to the 52 FG Spitfires.
For my part, there is just not enough information in the main text or in the following summary to deduce how many 109's the P-40's shot down that day.

Obviously, you apply a different criteria to get the result you want to see.

 

[Schweik]

I don't know who these 'defenders' are, but you are exaggerating absurdly here. Just to be clear, I harbour no illusions as to how universal overclaiming was , and didn't depend on the the markings the aircraft carried.

I am referring to many people who have posted in this very thread over the last several years, as well as a half-dozen or so similar ones around the web. Of course I was exaggerating, to make a point, as a kind of shorthand reference to the afore mentioned previous discussions. You perhaps do not appreciate the use of irony in this way so I'll spell it out, but I'm not even exaggerating that much. For example once the numbers on P-40 (and other) claims came out from the Soviet sources I have read many posts by people asserting that the Soviet claims were invented, even calling into question the entire wartime careers of several Soviet aces. Similar assertions were also made about British Commonwealth and American pilots.

Of course, at this point it's almost necessary to question the victory counts or basic legitimacy of Allied aces if you want to believe that the Me 109 was vastly superior to the P-40, since we now know something that we were not aware of in the 1960's or 1990's, namely that there were dozens of P-40 aces in the Med and Russian Front where they were facing the Luftwaffe.

It's also not entirely unprecedented since this is the pattern of many of the post-war commentaries by certain, though not all German veterans. Some like Gunther Rall seem to have been able to see things from a broader perspective in the postwar environment and clearly respected their adversaries. On the other hand fellows like Hans Ulrich Rudel for example retained a certain political point of view which can be difficult to separate from objective descriptions of the war.

I don't entirely discount these either, but I would not automatically take the word of Hans Ulrich Rudel over say, Nikolay Gerasimovich Golodnikov. Like all accounts by wartime participants they have to be considered with regard to the perspectives of the authors, and where possible, by contrasting with available empirical data. Especially where one side presents the other as subhuman or incapable of success, we should probably be very cautious, more cautious than we were in the past certainly. Especially since we do now have much more empirical data to consider.

Which is the point I was making.

Now if we stick with the examples you posted from MAW, and in particular the one for 24th March, as that is the most troubling one:
(snip)
For my part, there is just not enough information in the main text or in the following summary to deduce how many 109's the P-40's shot down that day.

Fair enough, though as I mentioned, your (implied) theory requires that A) the Spitfire pilots who only claimed 3 me 109s shot down, did not overclaim but in fact underclaimed by 200%. I.e. they claimed 3 and got 7 (this is not impossible, but seems unlikely). while B) simultaneously, the P-40 pilots overclaimed by 1000% or more and didn't get any, and C) the German's themselves were incorrect in reporting their planes shot down by P-40's. We also need to ignore the descriptive text of the running air battle with the 33 FG P-40's and the supposed shoot down of two 'difficult' P-40 pilots by their experten squadron leader after he called his fellow pilots 'Swine'. Again, all this put together is not impossible, some strange things happen in war and specifically in these air battles, but if Occam's razor comes into play I think we can safely assume the 33 FG shot down more Me 109's than they lost that day as on the others.

At the very least, perhaps we can agree that the Luftwaffe overclaimed quite a bit here, since they claimed 7 P-40's shot down but in fact only got 1?

Beyond that, I'm willing to let it go, I have seen many of these discussions get bogged down by minutae such as picking apart details in some endless segue, while the main point is lost. So lets move on with the other three incidents, because I think I have already found several more, maybe as many as ten so far. I'll try to transcribe and post at least one or two more some time today or tonight. Then over time perhaps we will see if a pattern emerges or not.

I'll ask you though the same question I asked you twice previously, but perhaps not directly enough. You apparently have access to MAW Vols II and III, as you are quoting from them, yes? Or at least from Vol III. If so, have you read the book? And if that is the case, can you answer this question: do you find that the American P-40 squadrons were suffering heavy losses in their numerous encounters with Luftwaffe Me 109's?

Because based on what the people I call "Defenders of the Trope" were claiming in numerous posts in this very thread, that would seem necessary. If the Me 109F or G is superior in every way, maneuverability, handling, speed, acceleration dive speed, and so on, to the P-40F, L, K and M, then one would assume they would have the same kind of success rate against them that they had against say, Hurricanes or LaGG-3. But that is not what I am seeing in the MAW books that I have so far (Vols II and III).

Obviously, you apply a different criteria to get the result you want to see.

Needless to say, or we can allow the data to tell us it's own story, can't we? I think that is generally the best policy.

S

 

[Schweik]

So here are two more examples. The first one is small and a little murky but I'm including it because it's from the day before the one we were arguing about. This is part of the same air campaign in support of a New Zealand ground offensive. From Shores Vol II P. 548

March 23 1943
P-40F's of the 79th FG escorted A-20 Boston bombers on raids over Mareth. They made claims for one Me 109 destroyed, one damaged and one probable. No losses.

Later Spit Mk V from 52nd FG engaged Me 109's in the same area but their only claim was one destroyed in a collision (the Spitfire was also lost) and then in another area, the 450 Sqdn RAF escorted 260 sqdrn Kittyhawk III's on a raid southwest of El Hamm. Losses were one Boston and one Kittyhawk III both to Flak, but apparently they did not engage fighters.

Germans claimed 5 spitfires and a B-25. only the B-25 appears to be accurate, possibly the A-20. Italian MC 202 pilots also claimed 2 spitfires near the Mareth line.

German losses were 4 Me 109's shot down by enemy planes, 1 force-landed, and 3 lost to Flak. Two of the losses were attributed by the Germans to P-40's, one to Spitfires (the collision). This is the summary of air to air losses, per German sources:

Bf 109G-6 WNr 1681 flew into debris of shot down Spitfire and crashed 45 km ESE Gafsa, Maj Muncheberg KiA
Bf 109G-2 Trop WNr 10743 White 8 combat with P-40 5km E Maknassy Uffz Johann penall KiA
Bf 109G-2 trop WNR 10638 White 9 shot down Maknassy; Fw Hildebrandt safe
Bf 109G-4 trop WNr 15064 White 6 shot up by Spifire while landing at Gabes, 20% damaged
Bf 109G-4 trop WNr 10900 Black 5 shot down by P-40's Djerba area,; Wffiz Willi Muller KiA

these are from JG 77 and JG 51

TL : DR 79th FG P-40Fs engaged Me 109's and shot down 2, maybe 3, for no losses.

Here is another small one but it's also interesting because it's earlier and involves Kittyhawk I's.

Wednesday, 8 July 1942

11 Kittyhawk Mk1s (P-40E) from 250 Sdn joined ten from 112 squadron and ten from 3 RAAF squadron for a FB attack on LGs 20 and 21. Me 109's from JG 27 and JG 51 were caught low with others flying CAP attacking from above.

RAF Kittyhawk pilots claimed 3 Bf 109's destroyed, plus 4 damaged and two probable. They also claimed two Ju 87's. Hurricane IIbs flying the same day also claimed 2 Bf 109's and defensive gunners on a Boston claimed an MC 202. MC 202's claimed two P-40's probable.

German pilots claimed 3 Hurricanes.

Actual losses were 4 Me 109's and a Ju 87 shot down, two damaged by strafing. DAF reported losing 2 Hurricanes (pilots KIA), plus 3 damaged aircraft - 1 Hurricane and two Kittyhawks were damaged but landed at their own base, with one kittyhawk pilot being WiA.

German losses:

3./JG 27 BF 109F-4 trop WNr 8486 Yellow 3 shot down by P-40 1 km W Turbiya; Lt Karl Kugelbauer bailed out KIA
3./JG 27 BF 109F-4 trop WNr 10277 shot down by P-40, crash landed El Daba 70% Lt Friedrich Hoffmann safe
8./JG 27 BF 109F-4 trop WNr 10007 force landing Qotaifya, after combat 100%; Fw Kurt Maraun WiA
10. (Jabo)/JG 53 Bf 109F-4 trop WNr 8624 70% damaged crash landing at Ootaifiya
7./StG 3 Ju 87 combat with P-40 Bir el Abd; Fw Gunther Ulrich KiA/Gefr Bruno Fischer WiA

Three of the German loss reports specifically mention P-40's, two don't mention what aircraft shot them down. They also mention two more Me 109's damaged by strafing. Hurricane pilots did claim two shot down but the unit which engaged the Hurricanes was 2./JG 27, and they did not report any losses.

Though these were Kittyhawk I's vs. 109F's, it's worth noting these were from 3 of the best Commonwealth P-40 squadrons, one led by the double P-40 ace (13 Victory) Billy Drake who made one of the claims. They also caught the Me 109's low which negates the altitude advantage.

TL : DR DAF P-40's shot down 3 or 4 Bf 109's and a Ju 87 for no losses (but had two damaged)

 

[Schweik]

Billy Drake (RAF Ace with 13 Kills on the P-40) on P-40 Kittyhawks

"Allison engine had plenty of power"

"If you got in trouble with the Kittyhawk you just dropped down the nose and got out of there."

Air Commodore Peter Brothers and Group Captain Billy Drake

 

[Stig1207]

Fair enough, though as I mentioned, your (implied) theory requires that A) the Spitfire pilots who only claimed 3 me 109s shot down, did not overclaim but in fact underclaimed by 200%. I.e. they claimed 3 and got 7 (this is not impossible, but seems unlikely). while B) simultaneously, the P-40 pilots overclaimed by 1000% or more and didn't get any, and C) the German's themselves were incorrect in reporting their planes shot down by P-40's. We also need to ignore the descriptive text of the running air battle with the 33 FG P-40's and the supposed shoot down of two 'difficult' P-40 pilots by their experten squadron leader after he called his fellow pilots 'Swine'. Again, all this put together is not impossible, some strange things happen in war and specifically in these air battles, but if Occam's razor comes into play I think we can safely assume the 33 FG shot down more Me 109's than they lost that day as on the others.

At the very least, perhaps we can agree that the Luftwaffe overclaimed quite a bit here, since they claimed 7 P-40's shot down but in fact only got 1?

Beyond that, I'm willing to let it go, I have seen many of these discussions get bogged down by minutae such as picking apart details in some endless segue, while the main point is lost. So lets move on with the other three incidents, because I think I have already found several more, maybe as many as ten so far. I'll try to transcribe and post at least one or two more some time today or tonight. Then over time perhaps we will see if a pattern emerges or not.

I'll ask you though the same question I asked you twice previously, but perhaps not directly enough. You apparently have access to MAW Vols II and III, as you are quoting from them, yes? Or at least from Vol III. If so, have you read the book? And if that is the case, can you answer this question: do you find that the American P-40 squadrons were suffering heavy losses in their numerous encounters with Luftwaffe Me 109's?

Because based on what the people I call "Defenders of the Trope" were claiming in numerous posts in this very thread, that would seem necessary. If the Me 109F or G is superior in every way, maneuverability, handling, speed, acceleration dive speed, and so on, to the P-40F, L, K and M, then one would assume they would have the same kind of success rate against them that they had against say, Hurricanes or LaGG-3. But that is not what I am seeing in the MAW books that I have so far (Vols II and III).

You are still assuming that all the 109 losses on 24th March were to due to combat with American fighters; that is probably not the case. Kracker Luftwaffe Archive has the 2 Jg27 aircraft lost over the sea, suspected cause being fuel exhaustion. The Jg53 losses are several hundred kilometers to the north and their is nothing in the MAWIII text that links them to the 33rd FG engagement. So that leaves the Jg77 losses as the most likely candidates, but with the paucity of information in the text (neither III/ Jg77 or 52ng FG are mentioned at all) it's hard to say who got what. In short, the only certain victory that can be attributed to 33rd is the 2./ Jg77 109 piloted by Wolfmeier , based on the information provided in MAWIII.

I have read MAWII and i am about halfway through MAWIII; my impression has been that the P-38 units have been bearing the brunt of the AAF losses so far. However if you want to see examples of American P-40 squadrons suffering heavy losses, look at 1. and 2. February..

 

[Glider]

Billy Drake (RAF Ace with 13 Kills on the P-40) on P-40 Kittyhawks

"Allison engine had plenty of power"

"If you got in trouble with the Kittyhawk you just dropped down the nose and got out of there."

Air Commodore Peter Brothers and Group Captain Billy Drake

And if you were already close to the deck common if not normal in GA missions?

 

[wlewisiii]

And if you were already close to the deck common if not normal in GA missions?

P-40E vs Bf-109E? Ram the throttle forward to about 60~70" and run away from him? That's good for 1780hp according to a letter from Allison on Dec 12, 1942.