Bf-109 vs P-40

P-40 vs Bf 109

  • Total voters
    165

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glider said:
In Dec 1942 you are up against the 109F4 or the early 109G, I take the 109 every time
Click to expand...
Perhaps in terms of the two aircraft types produced but how often did they meet and where? The North African conflict was completely finished in May 1943
 
pbehn said:
Perhaps in terms of the two aircraft types produced but how often did they meet and where? The North African conflict was completely finished in May 1943
Click to expand...
The Luftwaffe in North Africa were equipped with the 109F4 as standard equipment for most of the conflict. I cannot give an exact date as I don't have access to my books but certainly from at least October 1941.
Hence the superiority of the individual aircraft in combat. The Hurricane II's and early/ late Kittyhawks vs 109F4 were at a severe disadvantage
 

Well, you are suggesting something which is extremely unlikely - given that Luftwaffe planes just running out of gas was pretty rare. The fighting on that day - the base they were raiding down south where 4 Bf 109's were shot down, nor (especially) the other location up near Tunis where 2 were shot down, were not far from the sea. So it's plausible that damaged aircraft may have crashed into the sea. But it seems to be a rare coincidence that on the day that US fighters just happened to claim ~ 14 Luftwaffe fighters shot down, an extremely unusual incident occurred in which 2 (according to your theory, undamaged) Bf 109's just happened to run out of gas over the sea and crash. I read through probably 80% of both books and I can't remember too many examples of that happening.

So you would still be assuming (unusually) wild overclaiming by the US pilots on the same day that a very rare (double!) accident occurred for the Luftwaffe.


Yes, I would agree the P-38 units took a lot of casualties and seemed to get relegated to flying high altitude escort to heavy bombers (B-17 or B-24). For example they weren't flying that many fighter sweeps / armed recon or fighter bomber attacks any more after the first couple of months. The P-39 units got slaughtered every time they came near the Luftwaffe even when escorted by Spitfires and were soon relegated to 'maritime patrol' activities. (I would really like to learn more about how the Soviets did so well with P-39's while the US and other allies did so poorly!). The US Spit V units flew fighter sweeps and escort missions, and also did a fair amount of fighter-bombing attacks (surprisingly) and took small but continuous losses, but also caused steady casualties and were probably roughly even against Luftwaffe Bf 109.s

The US P-40 (F/L/K) units flew similar (fighter sweep, bomber escort, FB escort, and FB) missions, usually unescorted (quite often P-40F/L flew high cover for P-40K fighter bombers or in Commonwealth units, P-40's flew escort for Hurricanes) and took fairly low losses while causing a small but continuous attrition in return, roughly equivalent to the Spit V's. More importantly to their commanders they seemed to be able to successfully escort bombers (keep them from getting shot down) and / or perform their strafing missions. Spit IX units tended to wreak havoc on the Bf 109s, delivering 2-1 or 3-1 or even better losses against the Germans.

The typical engagement between Bf 109's and late model P-40's (which could be as many as 30-40 aircraft on each side) resulted in 2-3 losses on each side, plus 3-4 damaged to various degrees. The P-40's were often able to land back at base with substantial damage, even the (theoretically less protected) P-40L's.

Per the P-38's though, it's worth noting that the American heavy (and medium) bombers did seem to be doing a substantial amount of damage against enemy airfields as a lot of Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica aircraft were listed as destroyed on the ground by level bombing raids.

You let me know when you catch up to MAWIII and see if your impression is different.

S
 
Last edited:
Glider said:
And if you were already close to the deck common if not normal in GA missions?
Click to expand...

It would not be common to be at treetop level except briefly, precisely because it was dangerous. Swoop down to bomb or strafe and then zoom back to a comfortable altitude.

But if you did get caught low, and came under attack, the response would depend on the relative 'E' state. Based on what the Kittyhawk aces themselves said, one of the following options is likely:

  1. If the enemy A/C was in a high E state and approaching fast, either a skid to avoid being hit prior to overshoot, followed by full throttle (possibly overboosting) and try to catch him with a burst.
  2. Or a sharp turn especially to the left, since Me 109's had stiff control's at high speeds and suffered a lot of torque which made it hard to turn left when going fast*
  3. Or a 180 degree turn followed by opening fire with all guns, which turns either into a gun-duel or the Bf 109 breaks off. If he breaks off turn into him and shoot him down. If he doesn't start shooting at long range, keep your guns hot and aim true - you'll probably get him as you are putting out a lot more lead, your guns have longer range and better penetration.

Basically if the P-40 pilot saw a Bf 109 coming, they could evade it. They were shot down when they didn't notice (especially in the earlier period when they didn't have a wingman) or when multiple Bf 109's were working together to do a series of attacks. Often the Lufwaffe would use one aircraft as bait, while others (the rest of the Rotte or the squadron) came to attack the pursuers. If they didn't fall for the bait or turned aggressively the Bf 109's would typically disengage if they had sufficient E. I'll post some interesting descriptions of individual actions later to give a better idea of how combat went down.

*From a British analysis of the Me 109E:

"..It is at high speeds that lack of a rudder trimmer most seriously inconveniences the pilot. At 215 mph (346 km/h) the a/c is trimmed directionally, no rudder being required. At higher speeds left rudder must be applied, and at 300mph (483 km/h) about 2 deg of left rudder are needed. The rudder is very heavy at high speeds, and a large force is required to apply even such a small amount; this becomes very tiring, and affects the pilot's ability to put on more left rudder to assist a turn to the left. Consequently at high speeds the Me 109 turns more readily to the right than to the left...."

S
 
Last edited:

From mid 1941 through mid 1942, Bf 109F4 were the dominant Luftwaffe (and Axis) fighter, though they did still use 109E especially as "Jabo's" (and they had Bf 109E's all the way until the end of 1942), there were a substantial number of Me 110 though they seem to have been much less active by mid 1942, and there were still a lot of MC 200, MC 202, and some older Italian fighters around (even Cr 42).

The DAF was still using Hurricane I, IIb, IIc and some of the anti-tank (big gun) IId's, almost exclusively for fighter bomber or ground attack by 1942, as well as Tomahawk (P-40 B/C) and Kittyhawk I (P-40E) fighters which were their main front line fighters until around June 1942. Some South African units still had Tomahawks until 1943 and Kittyhawk Mk. I until middle 1943. Also the Beaufighter, particularly in naval and convoy defense action, was a surprisingly effective heavy fighter.

I would agree that Tomahawk and Kittyhawk Mk. I were at a disadvantage against Bf 109F, with two caveats - in large part this seems to be due to poor British tactics and training, particularly the lack of flying in pairs; and they still caused steady casualties against the Luftwaffe anyway. As in they might lose 3 but still shot down 1. Skilled pilots in Tomahawks and Kittyhawks reversed this ratio and shot down numerous Bf 109F's including those flown by Experten (note Caldwell and Nicky Barr for example).

From June 1942 some Kittyhawk Mk III (P-40K) began arriving in Theater, and a small but significant number of the Packard-Merlin engined Kittyhawk II and IIa (P-40F/L) version arrived. Among Commonwealth units only 260 RAF and 3 RAAF got these, but all of the US units had them initially (with some later units getting P-40K), as well as (American) P-38's and a small number of (American and British) Spit V's.

Kittyhawk MK II and MK III did pretty well against the Bf 109F and G series fighters. So, somewhat surprisingly did the P-40K.

P-40K was basically an improved P-40E. The main difference between a P-40K and E was that the former had a strengthened crankshaft enabling much more overboosting (57 " mercury which delivered ~1500 hp at medium altitude was the standard WEP setting and could be maintained ~15 minutes), better ammunition storage for less gun stoppages, either a fin or an extended tail for better stability, and automatic boost control for easier engine management.



One other thing to keep in mind about the Desert Air War, is that by mid-1942 onward, the Luftwaffe was numerically outnumbered. They did not spread themselves thin so as to be constantly outnumbered on a tactical level, because the Luftwaffe tended to do everything to maximize their results in air combat. Rather, they tended to concentrate in certain areas and try to win local air superiority there. So in a broad area of ground warfare you would only find Luftwaffe engaged in certain key sectors, with others largely left to fend for themselves. This contributed to a lot of bad blood between the Luftwaffe and army ground commanders like Rommel.

Conversely the Commonwealth behaved almost as if the Luftwaffe didn't exist much of the time. They put bombs on most of their fighters (including Spitfires somewhat amazingly) and sent them in to strafe and bomb enemy tanks, artillery and ground troops. When they did engage the Luftwaffe it was often with P-40's sent to strafe and bomb enemy airfields, while escorting medium bombers or just on their own. Though they sometimes got jumped doing this and took heavy casualties, they could often survive being attacked, usually caused casualties and sometimes turned the tables on the LW.

S
 
But against the 109F4 which was the normal mount of the Luftwaffe fighters? The 109 has the speed advantage and with a 20mm mounted on the centerline is probably more accurate and has a longer effective range, controls are not as stiff at high speed, can more than match the P40 in a dive plus has a better climb. I am sorry but all the advantages are with the Me109
 
Glider said:
But against the 109F4 which was the normal mount of the Luftwaffe fighters? The 109 has the speed advantage and with a 20mm mounted on the centerline is probably more accurate and has a longer effective range,
Click to expand...

If it's P-40 C or E then the 109F4 has a significant speed advantage. If it's a P-40 F/L or K, not so much, though it would depend on the altitude.

Though the 15 or 20mm cannon was much more accurate and precise at close range, the .50 caliber mg's had a much longer effective range, and six machine guns put out vastly more volume of fire than a single cannon, however accurate. There are several incidents in the book, for example where Clive Caldwell shot down Stahlschmidt, the Germans reported surprise at the long range of the guns.

controls are not as stiff at high speed, can more than match the P40 in a dive plus has a better climb. I am sorry but all the advantages are with the Me109
Click to expand...

The Bf 109F, F4 in particular, was the best 'dogfighting' version of the Bf 109 without a doubt, but it still had stiff control and torque problems at high speeds. It certainly had much better climb than a P-40 and also better acceleration. I would say that it appears in MAW the F-4 and G-2 did best against allied fighters of all types, whereas the G-4 and G-6 seem to have had more trouble.

I know it's a popular Trope with a lot of people on the internet that Bf 109's were vastly superior in every respect to a P-40 (and to the Yak, LaGG 5 etc.) but this is at variance with wartime testing and the testimony of the pilots on both sides. Both German and DAF pilots in MAW II and III are quoted extensively. Few particularly liked the P-40 but they all acknowledged that it could easily out-turn the Bf 109 and most also noted that it could out dive them.

Diving is complex because the Bf 109 accelerated better, but the P-40 was heavier which quickly came into play in a dive, and could reach a higher dive speed. Bf 109's were limited to 466 mph (and then only from 10,000 feet or higher), whereas P-40's were limited to ~480 per the manuals but routinely exceeded ~550 mph and some tests were done over 600 (you can find these on youtube). The bigger issue though is with the controls, both aircraft had control challenges at very high speeds but the P-40 could still turn in both directions (the pilot was just forced to adjust the trim as the speed changed) while the Bf 109 became very difficult to control. This is why diving very fast at low altitude was prohibited.

Whatever the mechanics, anecdotally throughout MAW you can find DAF pilots routinely evading Bf 109's through diving, and some of the Luftwaffe aces also acknowledged the dive speed of the "Curtiss" as they typically referred to it. It is worth noting however that this escape was temporary - if the Bf 109 pilots, particularly in the G models, wanted to keep chasing the P-40 they could catch up to it - but if they did so they would find themselves in a low altitude dogfight which was not an ideal situation for them. That is how a lot of them got shot down in fact. I'll quote a couple of anecdotes later when I have time to transcribe them.

This was, in my opinion, the main difference between the P-40 and the Hurricane and why the Hurricane was phased out of Air Superiority missions while the P-40 continued to be used that way in spite of it's big problem with performance ceiling; the P-40 could disengage from combat whereas the Hurricane could not. Split S and escape dive was not as easy to pull off successfully in the Med as it was in the Pacific (where the P-40 had a notable speed advantage not just in dive but in level flight as well), and took a better pilot frankly as a result, but it was still their best option in many cases and one which they clearly relied on. If the Bf 109 was in a high E state and too close to try to dive away from they would skid (via left rudder with right aileron) until it passed by, then overboost and try to catch them with a burst after they came into view.

S
 
Last edited:

Here is a shorter response and a question - if this were all true, how do you explain the substantial losses of Bf 109F's in combat against late model P-40's, according to the records of the Germans themselves? Based on your description here I would expect that Bf109F4 would almost always defeat P-40's by a wide margin. Against the American units in MAW III like 33, 57th, and 79th FG, it looks about even, maybe even a slight edge for the Americans. Maybe MAW IV will tell a different story as combat picks up in the Med in mid 1943.

S
 
By the time the US forces were on the scene the back of the Luftwaffe had been broken, they were normally outnumbered, being chased from base to base and morale unsurprisingly was low. Page 416 of MAW III has a good example.

'During the forenoon the Mitchell's are back, accompanied by fighters ad fighter bombers in great numbers. Kittyhawks fly over us at 500 meters showing just how little they have to fear.'

That day the allies claimed 10 Me109's (I am ignoring the damaged and probable claims) the Germans lost 1. Admittedly the allies only lost 1 to air combat but considering the numbers advantage the allies had that was probably as good as you could get.
 

Thanks for responding, and I'm glad to see yet another person seems to have MAW!

What you are proposing here is an interesting variation of The Trope. So if you will forgive me for summarizing, the variation here is that "while the Bf 109 is vastly superior to the P-40 in every respect, this does not apply when the German pilot morale is low and the allies have the numbers."

I do agree that morale had clearly declined. I also suspect that JG 77 just wasn't as elite of a squadron as JG 27 which was clearly an exceptional unit, so I'll throw you that bone as well. However I think JG 53 ("Pik As" / Ace of Spades) was an elite unit, anyway I believe they did very well in Russia, and yet they didn't do very well against USAAF P-40 squadrons either.

Overall however I don't think this variation of The Trope stands up on it's own legs very well, for the following reasons.

  1. Luftwaffe forces were also outnumbered from early 1942, in terms of raw numbers. They dealt with this (as I mentioned previously upthread) by concentrating in what they decided were the key strategic areas so they didn't suffer extreme local numerical inferiority.
  2. Most of the incidents I cited so far were roughly even numbers (for example II and III JG 77 vs. two squadrons from the 33rd FG, or roughly 20-25 aircraft on both sides. The Dec. incident with the DAF squadrons (the first one I cited I don't remember the exact date) was 15 Bf 109's against 7 P-40's IIRC.
  3. Bf 109's had the altitude ceiling advantage (unless up against Spit IX's which were still rare at that point in Theater) which largely enabled them to pick their fights. So once again they could avoid getting ganged up on most of the time.
And I'm sure morale was a factor, naturally, but this isn't really considered admissible for the Commonwealth pilots in 1941 or the first half of 1942 when they were suffering heavy losses. They had serious morale, training and tactical doctrine issues but this rarely comes into play when comparing the aircraft type capabilities. So I think it essentially evens out. Early 1943 is not the same as say the middle of 1944 when you have so many poorly trained Luftwaffe pilots going into action.

That day the allies claimed 10 Me109's (I am ignoring the damaged and probable claims) the Germans lost 1.Admittedly the allies only lost 1 to air combat but considering the numbers advantage the allies had that was probably as good as you could get.
Click to expand...

Here, respectfully I think you are cherry picking a bit. Yes that does look like USAAF overclaimed a lot on that particular day, but that was during a sustained air offensive and if you look at the 10 day period bracketing that date, which I believe I remember is close to some of the other incidents, you'll find LW units were actually overclaiming worse and taking heavier losses than just one fighter. I'll post a few more incidents from that same month when I have time.

S
 
One other thought, the Germans being outnumbered doesn't seem to detract from the glory of the P-51 or P-47 does it?

S
 

Nope, I am saying that if Morale is low and you are outnumbered its wrong to say because side A shot down more of side B it means that side A had the best aircraft. Morale is hugely important in any type of conflict. When Marseille died his unit was withdrawn for a while because of low morale.
At the start of the book there is an interesting section made up of comments from actual pilots from all sides. The German pilots make note that thy were nearly always outnumbered True, but there are always exceptions and some observations have been made on these actions. To sum up, I have yet to find any pilot from any airforce who at any time considered the P40 to be a match for the Luftwaffe
  1. Bf 109's had the altitude ceiling advantage (unless up against Spit IX's which were still rare at that point in Theater) which largely enabled them to pick their fights. So once again they could avoid getting ganged up on most of the time.
Click to expand...
Which of course shows that Bf 109 had a significant tactical and strategic advantage
You do me a disservice. I deliberately said allies not USAAF and if you look at the ten claims you will see that this includes RAF claims. All sides over claimed as an honest mistake, the point was that the losses seem to be one each.
 

Right - which wasn't so much of a problem when the DAF was using very bad tactics, as I'm sure you read them describing if you read those commentaries, (including effectively flying without wingmen which is super dangerous in the kinds of planes all-sides were using then) and had low morale themselves in many cases. The Luftwaffe made a strategic decision to maximize their own combat odds (and, according to interviews with Luftwaffe pilots quoted in MAW - to maximize the scores of the experten) so they concentrated their forces in what they thought were important spots so as to not be outnumbered on the tactical level.

The numbers were a constant in other words, one which they dealt with for a while when facing older model aircraft using really bad tactics, but which they could no longer do when they had enemy pilots flying in pairs in later model P-40's, quite clearly.

True, but there are always exceptions and some observations have been made on these actions. To sum up, I have yet to find any pilot from any airforce who at any time considered the P40 to be a match for the Luftwaffe
Click to expand...

Well here - let he help you with that and thereby improve your life a little:

"Actually, the P-40 could engage all Messerschmitts on equal terms, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf 109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better. Its speed and vertical and horizontal manoeuvre were good and fully competitive with enemy aircraft. Acceleration rate was a bit low, but when you got used to the engine, it was OK. We considered the P-40 a decent fighter plane.[89]"

N. G. Golodnikov,
2nd Guards Fighter Regiment (GIAP),
Northern Aviation Fleet (VVS SF)[90]

Nor was Golodnikov the only one- I believe Caldwell and Drake and some others also said favorable things, as did some of the American pilots. EDIT: noticed this comment from Nicky Barr: "The Kittyhawk became, to me, a friend. It was quite capable of getting you out of trouble more often than not. It was a real warhorse."[74] Interestingly, in MAW he goes into details about the problems he encountered with the P-40E and called the P-40K the best version.

I'll grant you it was not as popular as the Spitfire but that was largely due to the effective combat ceiling issue. And because the Spitfire was the best allied fighter in the Theater, I'm just arguing the P-40 was not the dog it has been made out to be. This is what the data shows us, IMO.

Which of course shows that Bf 109 had a significant tactical and strategic advantage
Click to expand...

Well, maybe tactical and operational, yes. Without a doubt the Bf 109 had an advantage. It had a much higher ceiling, better climb rate and better acceleration. A nice nose-mounted cannon. But it also had strategic limitatons, namely short range, and tactical limitations, such as not being that great at turning and rolling, having stiff controls especially at high speed, and so on.

Every aircraft in WW II had advantages and disadvantages.

You do me a disservice. I deliberately said allies not USAAF and if you look at the ten claims you will see that this includes RAF claims. All sides over claimed as an honest mistake, the point was that the losses seem to be one each.
Click to expand...

My apologies, I'm afraid you will have to forgive me as I was not at home and didn't have the book in front of me. My point still stands.

S
 
Last edited:
Schweik said:
I'm glad to see yet another person seems to have MAW!
Click to expand...

There are a number of P-40 threads in the aviation forum that get necroed every so often by someone coming by and telling everyone how the this fighter is underrated or unapprectiated; the MAW series is quite well known here, though what people take away from it, differs a fair bit.
 
Stig1207 said:
There are a number of P-40 threads in the aviation forum that get necroed every so often by someone coming by and telling everyone how the this fighter is underrated or unapprectiated;
Click to expand...

I apologize to any forum grognards disturbed by my impertinence in reviving a thread with several long posts - I know I'm a newby and long-winded to boot, but I have tried to keep the signal to noise ratio of my posts relatively high so that they are of some value. I'm well-aware these discussions have been hashed out in the past, however new information does become available, and with regard to WW2 in general, and WW2 aviation specifically, a great deal of new data has come into view in recent years, not all of which has yet been processed or assimilated. The best example being the revisions to Russian Front historiography ala David Glantz etc.

My account here is new, but I have "lurked" on this forum for many years, specifically I have followed this thread since it was created in 2009 and followed several others on this forum for a similar length of time (some related to P-40's as well as many others). Though a newby here, I am not new to forum discussions, to aviation history, or to historical research, both "for fun" and professionally.

the MAW series is quite well known here, though what people take away from it, differs a fair bit.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but MAW is an ongoing series, and seeing as MAW III was published only in August of 2016, it's unlikely that the data it makes available was factored into discussions on this subject in 2009 or 2012 and of course MAW IV which is likely to have the lions share of data on USAAF P-40 squadrons in the Med hasn't been published yet . MAW series are expensive books, quite long, and as you yourself have experienced, it can take a while to read them let alone absorb and contextualize all the data therein. I have only begun to do so myself. So it's a bit premature to say that the subject is settled.

As I mentioned upthread, I have seen a progression of new data emerge about the P-40 (among many other WW2 aviation subjects) over many years. When I was a kid I poured over military aviation books by guys like Bill Gunston, Martin Caiden and Ronald Spector, and the first hand accounts by guys like Adolf Galland, Willi Heilmann, Saburo Sakai, and Hans Ulrich Rudel. The Tropes then were that P-40's were "rugged but unmaneuverable". Soviet P-39's were used exclusively for tank busting, the F2A was useless, the Italians didn't make any good fighters, and so on. Now we know all those things are false. The testimony of allied pilots like Clive Caldwell, Nicky Barr and Robert DeHaven, several books published by Osprey from authors such as Carl Molesworth, the Soviet sources (especially the general research and excellent pilot interviews provided to us by the Soviet lend lease aircraft website) the data aggregators like wwiiaircraftperformance.org and so on have tended to rehabilitate the P-40. Each new data point seems to push in that direction, in fact.

We have seen the flying video by Jeffrey Ethell who noted his surprise at the extraordinary maneuverability of the P-40, which he noted was much more manueverable than a Mustang and compared to "a Pitts with an Allison Engine". Significantly, Ethell himself, who knew more about WW2 fighters than most people posting here including myself, noted that he had been one of the people who believed the Trope about the "unmaneuverable" P-40 until he actually flew one.

The most interesting "recent" (as in the last few decades) research development to me has been the ongoing publication of books like Black Cross / Red Star and the MAW series, as well as other works by Shores and some other authors (Russel Brown's excellent but hard to find "Desert Warriors" was one of the first to make a serious attempt as relates to the P-40), to compare actual losses with victory claims. Done on this scale, it's something new.

So while some here may believe all of these discussions were settled already back in the 1950's or 1960's, if we really already know all the answers, what is the point of even having a forum like this to discuss WW2 aviation? In my opinion new data is clearly emerging, some of which overturns cliches and tropes from the past, and other data gives us new insights and presents entirely new aspects of the war that many of us hadn't heard of. Exciting things like a heretofore unknown (or little known) tank battle larger than Kursk for example.

Some people are very uncomfortable that the accounts of German veterans are no longer accepted verbatim and unquestioned, but are now compared with the heretofore lesser known accounts by pilots from other nations, or that the general perception of the war and some of it's details are called into question. For me, the ongoing revelation of new data is part of what keeps all this fun, and I certainly do not believe that I know the last word on the P-40 in WW2. I do currently favor a revisionist interpretation of the Trope, as I call it, on the P-40, but MAW so far gives us an incomplete picture. I don't know what MAW IV will tell us, maybe the P-40 squadrons got slaughtered, I can't wait to find out!

TL : DR Most of what I've posted from MAW here so far was published only a year and a half ago. Contrary to the implication, the discussion is not settled.

S
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Schweik said:
long-winded to boot
Click to expand...
Agree

I am not a grognard myself, but as you I have been reading this and similar forums for a decade at least. As far i see it, you are not bringing anything new to the P-40 debate, and while the MAW series is relatively new, you are not the first to plead the case for the P-40, on the basis of these books.

While i applaud your losses-to-losses comparisons, as the correct approach; your 'any 109 not lost to any other explicitly known cause, verifies it as a loss to P-40's' as you specifically do with the March 24 case, does not lend you credit. IMO that is shoddy interpretation of the data at hand.

While at it, I will share my findings, having from another source, positively established the III/Jg 77 loss, pilot Jahn, as Sbeitla NW of Bou Thadi; which ties well with the 33rd FG claims in that area. OTOH, the 50% damaged III/ Jg77 loss at Gabes is more likely linked to claims for 1 destrroyed and 2 dam at El Hamma by 145 Sqd (MAW II). I can shed no further light on the 2 Jg53 losses, but I have now got through February in MAW III, and I noted what the author writes about II/ Jg27, as they return to the theatre, at Trapani, and the role they were allocated. I don't remeber the page number, but it's late in the month; and it substantiates the supposition that the 2 losses the unit suffered on this date in no way were linked to the actions in central Tunisia. At the same time, I do not share your confidence that 109's were unlikely to run out of fuel

As to MAW IV, I have no reason to think that we will see P-40's getting 'slaugthered'; but neither do I expect a eureka moment, with the revelation that the P-40 really did that well that it was obviously wrong to replace them with P-47's, the most successful units as the first

I have a more dispassionate view of the P-40, but I don't see it as underrated; rather as overhyped.
 

"Pleading" seems incaccurrate. I'm just pointing out facts. And when people not two posts back in this very thread make statements like "I have yet to find any pilot from any airforce who at any time considered the P40 to be a match for the Luftwaffe." it's abundantly clear that the facts are not widely known here.


I posted new data (specific days of action, and not just March 24) and aggregated some of what has come out in recent years. I noted quite carefully (this is part of being long winded, covering these kinds of stipulations) that my "examination" was preliminary. You seem to have formed an obsession with this specific March 24 case, for which you have proposed a series of unlikely scenarios. But I believe I already posted 6 examples, and I can post at least 6 more, to back up my point, namely that the data shows that late model P-40's, especially those of the USAAF Fighter Groups, were holding their own quite well against Bf 109F and G fighters. It is clear that they also, incidentally, shot down a few Fw 190's.

And this is not in sync with the predictions and I daresay expectations of many people who posted previously in this thread about the overwhelming superiority of the Luftwaffe aircraft.


Dispassionate doesn't seem to be particularly accurate, you just have a negative view of it or an overhyped view of the Bf 109.

What I'm actually suggesting (quite preliminarily at this point) is just a nuance on the tale of the Desert Air War. I see five phases.

Phase 1 - Hurricane squadrons dominate early Italian fighters (Cr 42 and Mc 200 and G. 50 etc.)
Phase 2 - Luftwaffe arrives and Hurricane units suffer losses from Me 109E
Phase 3 - RAF sends Tomahawks and Kittyhawk Mk 1 to counter Bf 109E
Phase 4 - Luftwaffe replaces 109E with Bf 109F, Italians deploy Mc 202, RAF (P-40 and Hurricane) losses mount again
Phase 5 - RAF P-40 F/L and K units arrive, USAAF units arrive. 109F and G suffer mounting losses.

of course by the middle of Phase 4 Spitfire, P-39 and P-38 units also arrive on scene, as do heavily armed US Medium and Heavy bombers, and Phase 5 sees the introduction of some Fw 190's and '5' series Italian fighters too, so it's complicated.

But I think it does appear that the late model P-40's could hold their own with Bf 109's, which matches what the DAF aces said and what the Soviet aces said.

The P-47 was a fantastic high-altitude fighter, but down low doing fighter-bomber attacks or low level fighter sweeps, you would be better off in a P-40.

S
 
Last edited:
I noticed another interesting pattern from reading MAW, which is that there were a few odd things about the Luftwaffe in general there and JG 27 in particular. I'd been aware for years that there was a bad relationship between JG 27 and the ground commanders including Rommel. The latter complained that their air force did not effectively damage enemy ground units and did not protect the Afrika Korps ground units from bomber and fighter-bomber attack.

In MAW you hear the voice of several of the surviving German pilots, who complained that their operations were oriented toward building up the scores of the top experten like Marseille, Steinhausen, Stahlschmidt etc., to the exclusion of any other goal.

Per wikipedia: "The commander of JG 27, Eduard Neumann, commented after the war that 'most of the pilots in Marseille's Staffel acted in a secondary role as escort to the "master". Internal rivalry over star status took precedence over military effectiveness."

In other words, the whole Staffel would be supporting or watching out for the 'star', instead of engaging the enemy.
Looking at the stats for JG 27 also tells an interesting story of numbers. Again just picked this up from Wikipedia so maybe it's wrong, but it says JG 27 claimed 1166 enemy aircraft (588 1. Gruppe, 477 I. Gruppe, 100 III. Gruppe, plus one from the Stab flight) and lost 200 aircraft "in action".

First fun fact is, of those 1166 victory claims, 250 were from just 3 experten (Stenhausen, Stahlschmidt and Marseille) who were all KIA in 1942. If you add Otto Schulz (51 victories) and Kageneck (69 victories) who were also KIA in 1942, that is 370 victory claims out of 1166. About 1/3 of the claims for the whole JG from just 5 pilots who all died. Three of the five, incidentally, were probably shot down by P-40 pilots (Clive Caldwell and James Edwards).

One of the German pilots in MAW mentioned that few if any other JG. 27 pilots could match Marseille's famous trick of shooting down enemy planes out of a defensive circle.

From MAW it's quite clear that JG. 27 overclaimed quite a bit, at least half probably more like 2/3 of those claims were inflated. So realistically thy probably shot down ~400 enemy aircraft for the loss of 200. Good, but not quite as spectacular as had been advertised.

On an operational / strategic level, the emphasis on raising the victory tally's for the experten meant that allied bombers were not effectively being stopped. JG. 27 focused on doing hit and run attacks from above, but this didn't translate into decisively stopping enemy tactical strikes, which started to take a noticeable toll by El Alemain. RAF flew numerous missions in 1941 and 1942 during which the bombers weren't even engaged. One of the things that happened from middle 1942 onwards is that DAF squadrons, especially the Americans with their more heavily armed bombers, took the fight to the Luftwaffe units.

Luftwaffe pilots quoted in MAW noted that P-40's were particularly dangerous in escort missions, why? Because this means that the Bf 109's couldn't just hit and run from above, but had to remain engaged, in other words dogfight, which put them at a disadvantage.

S
 
Last edited:
In other words the Luftwaffe in North Africa anyway seem to have been more focused on their theology of the "ubermensch"* and building up their experten than on accomplishing their actual mission which was protecting and acting as flying artillery for the ground forces, in the manner they had done so successfully for example in France.

The RAF, by contrast, were almost on the opposite extreme. They stuck to their doctrine and did as they were told to a fault, in fact due to their poor tactics this cost them a lot of lives. One of the reasons I think there were so many high scoring Australian aces flying the P-40 in particular (Clive Caldwell, Bobby Gibbes, Nicky Barr, John Waddy, Wilfred Arthur etc.) is that they did not play so strictly by the RAF rules, but figured things out on their own.

It's funny that per MAW interviews, the Germans seem to have particularly disliked the Australians for some reason.

S

* I know Nietzsche was not in synch with Third Reich ideology by any means I'm just using that term as shorthand for the mentlity of the latter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
_PabloSniper_
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
  • Poll
PZL P11 vs Bf 110
Replies
2
Views
2K
parsifal
Menu
Log in
Register