Bf-109 vs P-40 (1 Viewer)

[Schweik]

Anyway here is another promised anecdote. This is right around the same time as some of the others.

March 31, 1943

This was a busy day with a lot of maritime related activity surrounding German convoys. A lot of different things were going on but the P-40 actions were separate from the others. I'll try to break it down. I put the P-40 missions in Italic.

• Spit V's from 225 and 243 sqn did a recon sortie, encountered no fighters but 1 shot down by flak.
• A total of 7 MC 202's went off on convoy escort missions and 5 failed to return. Another took off to search for survivors but had engine trouble and went down, for a total of 6. These may have been lost to malfunctions or due to getting lost.
• Four P-40L's of 60th Sqn, 33 FG took off on a recon sweep over Faid, where they engaged 8 Bf 109's, claiming 1 destroyed for no losses.
• Twelve P-40L's of from the same 33 FG Sqn did a FB raid near El Guettar, were attacked by 3 Bf 109's, and claimed 3. (shores attributes 2 of these to JG 77) for no losses.
• Two P-40L's from 58 Sqn 33 FG went on a recon sortie, were attacked by Bf 109s and claimed 2 damaged for no losses.
• Four Spitfires from 243 Sqn RAF took off on a training flight and were attacked from above by Bf 109's, losing 2
• USAAF bomber strike against German convoy - 14 B-24's escorted by 25 P-38's, bombed ships and then were attacked by a mixed formation of 11 German fighters including Bf 109's, Me 210 and Fw 190's. B-24 bombers claimed 1, 7./JG 53 claimed 3 B-25's but none were lost.
• USAAF bomber strike against German convoy - 15 B-25's, 25 P-38's (from 95 Sqn 82nd FG) attacked a convoy near Zembra Island. They were attacked by Ju 88's, ten Bf 109's and Italian fighters. Bombers claimed hits to the ships, (Nauro was hit and set on fire by skip bombs from B-25's). P-38 pilots claimed 1 Ju 88 and 1 Bf 109, but lost 2 P-38's and 2 B-25's, bomber gunners claimed 3 Bf 109's and a Fw 190. German pilots claimed two B-25's and two P-38's (accurately) and lost 1 Bf 109 and 3 Ju 88's
• Two more Bf 109's from III./JG 53 were reported shot down by B-26's near Zembra Island.
• P-38's from 1st FG escorted a large force of B-17's to Sardanian airfields, where numerous Italian and German aircraft were destroyed on the ground. 12 Italian fighters scrambled claiming 3 bombers, but lost 1 MC 202 and 3 Reggiane's. B-17 gunners claimed 14 enemy fighters.
• Finally in the early evening 12 P-40L's from 33 FG went on a strafing / FB mission against El Guettar, when they ran into a formation of Bf 109's escorting Ju 87's. P-40' pilots claimed 5 Bf 109's and 4 Ju 87's, losing 1 P-40.

Total claims / losses were:
RAF / Commonwealth no claims, lost 2 Spitfires, 2 Hurricane IIc (possibly to engine / navigation trouble)
USAAF bomber crews claimed 14 Bf 109, MC 202, Fw 190 and Re 2001, lost 2 B-25's
USAAF P-38 squadrons claimed 1 Ju 88 and 1 Bf 109, lost 2
USAAF P-40L sqn's, (all 33 FG) claimed 9 Bf 109's and 4 Ju 87's, all in the El Guettar area. Lost 2 P-40L's, 1 pilot returned one POW
Luftwaffe claimed 1 P-40, 1 Spitfire, a Ventura, 2 P-38's and 3 B-25's. Lost 9 Bf 109's, 1 Ju 87, and 4 Ju 88
RA claimed 4 B-17s, lost 4 MC 202 plus 3 belly landed, and 1 Re 2001 plus 3 more heavily damaged while taking off.

LW losses were (according to their own records) 7 Bf 109's, 1 Ju 87 and 4 Ju 88's.
4./JG 27 Bf 109G-4 trop WNr 15039 White 8 shot down by fighters N. Zembra, Uffz Konstantin Benzein WiA
1./JG 77 Bf 109G-2 WNr 14526 White 10 combat with P-40 SE Gafsa; Uffz Gustav Krone KiA
1./JG 77 Bf 109G-2 WNr 13976 White 4 combat with P-40 SE Gafsa Uffz Bruno Glasow KiA
8./JG 53 Bf 109G-4 trop WNr 15129 shot down in combat by B-26 near Zembra Island, Lt Wilhelm Nack bailed out, WiA
2./JG 53 Bf 1096-6 WNr 16419 Black I shot down by AA 7km SE Cap Serrat; Oblt Dietrich Kasten baled, WiA
2./SchG 2** Bf 198F-4 WNr 7498 destroyed by own troops after crash landing due to enemy fire; Lt. Werner Zirus safe
2.(H)/14 Bf 109G-2 WNr 14266 50% damaged at Tunis
Ju 87D-3 trop crash landed due to AA, 20% crew safe
Ju 87D-3 WNr 2991 S7+BT combat with P-40 El Guettar; crew WiA / KiA
Ju 88A-4 crashed 5 km N Bizerta 3 crew KiA
Ju 88A-4 lost to fighters on convoy patrol 3 crew MiA
Ju 88A-4 lost in El Guettar area, 1 KiA 2 PoW

I didn't count a Bf 109 and a Storch which collided.

** this was a Jabo or FB unit which was stationed in North Africa for a short time from November 1942 - Spring 1943 after which it was re-equipped with Fw 190's in Germany.

This looks like 2 Bf 109's a Ju 87, and a Ju88 were shot down by P-40's, plus another 3 Bf 109's unknown, (one of which probably was the P-40's) in exchange for 2 P-40's lost (one apparently to AA). So while it was only a slight edge for the P-40's, and a busy / complex day, I posted this because it's fairly typical of the entries for Spring 1943.

S

 

[Glider]

Have we got different books?
Wednesday 31st March 1943 page 561
1) 18 B25's escorted by 23 P40's attacked Safax El Muro
Regia Aeronautica did not launch any missions but 2 MC 202 scrambled as the bombs fell

US losses 2 x P40's lost to flak, 2 x B25 ditched in the sea, 2 x B25 crash landed 11 x B25 lightly damaged
Italian Losses 5 x Mc202 destroyed on the ground and 11 damaged on the ground. The two that scrambled seem to have got away with it

Problem solved I was looking at Vol 2 North Africa not Vol 3 Tunisia apologies to one and all

 

[Schweik]

Have we got different books?
Wednesday 31st March 1943 page 561
1) 18 B25's escorted by 23 P40's attacked Safax El Muro
Regia Aeronautica did not launch any missions but 2 MC 202 scrambled as the bombs fell

US losses 2 x P40's lost to flak, 2 x B25 ditched in the sea, 2 x B25 crash landed 11 x B25 lightly damaged
Italian Losses 5 x Mc202 destroyed on the ground and 11 damaged on the ground. The two that scrambled seem to have got away with it

Yes and no! I'm referring to MAW III page 417-420. I think you are referring to MAW II. I probably should have specified. Shores covers activity by different units sometimes on the same day in the two books, though he usually makes note of it if there is any overlap in terms of action.

The day I mentioned by the way is the day after another one you or somebody else in the thread brought up previously

S

 

[Glider]

Yes and no! I'm referring to MAW III page 417-420. I think you are referring to MAW II. I probably should have specified. Shores covers activity by different units sometimes on the same day in the two books, though he usually makes note of it if there is any overlap in terms of action.

The day I mentioned by the way is the day after another one you or somebody else in the thread brought up previously

S

You were to quick for me, I trid to edit the post but you replied first

 

[Stig1207]

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.

I have commented on the first three dates that you posted; I have focused mainly on March 24, as that is where I saw major discrepancies between your interpretation of the data and what I see; if you regard that as an obsession on my part, so be it. I haven't bothered to look at any of the other dates that you've posted, and what would be the point? You have already decided the outcome, even before you find the data that may back it up.

MAW III doesn't really tell us a lot about what happened on March 24; not in the slightly less than a page of text nor the summary that follows it. Yet you have determined that 6 of the 109 losses that day were due to P-40's of the 33rd FG, despite this one source only mentioning one of the Luftwaffe (I/ Jg77) units involved; not describing the combat in any detail nor making any assertions as to who shot down what, which the author(s) otherwise do in many other cases. In the summary, the reported locations of the LW losses are given (if you look at a map of Tunisia you will see that these are spread over a very large part of the country, some of them hundreds of km from where 33rd FG makes it 's claims); however, no times for when these losses occurred are shown, even less that these losses necessarily had anything to do with actions the 33rd FG were involved in. 52nd FG were also claiming 109's during the day in areas where the Lw reported losses, as were 145 Sqd (according to MAW II). I have mentioned these issues before in my posts, and backed it up with other sources I have found. You have not acknowleged this and call these 'unlikely scenarios' but you have not provided any other information that attributes these 109 losses to the 33rd FG. You rely too heavily on MAW III for this particular date, for however much I appreciate this series of books, there is no doubt that there are mistakes in them.

I'll give just one example that I noted today:
March 3 (p. 371)
'...near the target 81 squadron was attacked and Sgt. Bellerby's aircraft was shot down- the first Mk IX to be brought down over Africa by an Axis fighter. It seems that the honour of achieving this notable success was gained by one of the Fw 190 pilots, Obfw. Goltzsch of 4./ Jg2.'

Jump to the summary:
British casualties:
81 Sqn Spitfire IX EN289 left 1020 , shot down; Sgt A.L. Bellerby MIA

German claims:
4./ Jg2 Obfw. Kurt Goltzsch Spitfire 5km SE Mateur 0743.

Even with a one hour time difference between British and German, there is something off there. Btw. the Spitfire Site, gives for serial EN289: 81 Sqn, FTR 4.3.1943.

It's not easy,

 

[Schweik]

Here is another one from two days earlier.

March 29, 1943 (MAW III Pp 414-415)

RAF Spit VBs and Beaufighters claimed a Ju 88 and an He 111, lost 2 Spitfires and a Hudson.

P-40L's from 33 FG saw action against JG 77 in the morning, Spit Vs from 31 FG got into a fight in the afternoon.

P-40L's from the 33 FG claimed 7 Bf 109s, (2 by 58 FS 30m E of Faid Pass, 5 by 60 FS in the La Fauconnerie area), plus 5 damaged
Spitfires from the 31 FG claimed 4 Fw 190's in the El Guettar area

JG 77 claimed 5 P-40's

Actual losses were:

1 P-38 and 2 P-40's, one of which was lost to AA
4 Bf 109's (plus 2 crash-landed damaged), plus 3 He 111's and 1 Ju 88

Bf 109 losses:
4./JG 77 Bf 109G-6 trop WNr 16373 shot down by P-40 1 km S La Fauconnerie; Lt Gunter Schmmelpfennig KiA
4./JG 77 Bf 109G-6 trop WNr 16449 White 4 + - combat P-40, crash landed 20% damaged, pilot safe
4./JG 77 Bf 109G-4 trop WNr 15100 crash landed La Fauconnerie 20% damaged afrer combat, pilot safe
8./JG 77 Bf 109G-2 trop WNr 10707 Black 9 shot down 5 km S. La Fauconnerie; Wffz Rolf Fischer KiA
8./JG 77 Bf 109G-2 trop WNr 10765 crash-landed after combat, 70% damaged; pilot safe
9./JG 77 Bf 109 G-2 trop WNr 10490 Yellow 11 Lost Sidi Bou Zid E Tebessa; Uffz Ewald Bleul KiA

La Fauconnerie is pretty far from El Guettar so I think these are attributable to the P-40's. The P-38 claimed by the Germans was probably the Hudson.

However on the same day in MAW II (pp 559-560) Shores shows 3 more additional Bf 109's shot down by P-40's near Gabes (and US 79th FG also losing 3 P-40's to flak), and 1 FW 190 shot down with another damaged near El Hamma - I suspect these would be the ones claimed by 31 FG.

RAF Spitfires made claims (per MAW II) to 6 Bf 109's that same day in the Gabes area so the 3 Bf 109's the Germans thought lost to P-40's near Gabes were probably shot down by Spits. 79th FG was also active near Gabes though they made no claims (at least in the summary, i didn't read all the text).

 

[Schweik]

You were to quick for me, I trid to edit the post but you replied first

No worries, it's complicated. I admit between the two books I find it pretty confusing myself. I should have posted which book I was referring to.

S

 

[Schweik]

I have commented on the first three dates that you posted; I have focused mainly on March 24, as that is where I saw major discrepancies between your interpretation of the data and what I see; if you regard that as an obsession on my part, so be it. I haven't bothered to look at any of the other dates that you've posted, and what would be the point? You have already decided the outcome, even before you find the data that may back it up.

Per your own remarks, you decided the outcome to all of this long before I even posted anything .

MAW III doesn't really tell us a lot about what happened on March 24; not in the slightly less than a page of text nor the summary that follows it. (snip) You rely too heavily on MAW III for this particular date,

I must admit, I am not really seeing your point right now. You challenged the entry I found for March 24 and took a really deep dive into it, invoking maps etc. Ok I disagree with your interpretation, but admit some ambiguity so fair enough, lets put an asterix by that one for further investigation, but lets consider the others. The overall pattern. Here is a summary of what I posted so far (being conservative here and omitting possible overlaps etc.):

July 8 1942 (112 RAF and 3 RAAF Kittyhawk I's vs. LW Bf 109Fs) 4 Bf 109F and 1 Ju 87 lost / 0 P-40's lost.
Dec 8 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs and Ks vs JG 77 Bf 109F and G) 4 Bf 109s lost / 1 P-40 lost
Dec 30 1942 (3 RAAF Kittyhawk III vs. JG 77 Bf 109F and G) 4 Bf 109s lost / 0 P-40's lost
23 March 1943 (USAAF 79 FG vs. JG 77 & JG 51) 2 Bf 109s lost to P-40's / 0 P40's lost
24 March 1943 *
29 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 4 Bf 109 lost +2 crash-landed and 3 He 111's and 1 Ju 88 / 2 P-40's lost (1 to AA)
31 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 3 Bf 109 lost + 3 crash-landed / 1 P-40 lost

however much I appreciate this series of books, there is no doubt that there are mistakes in them.(snip) Its not easy,

MAW isn't a time machine. It's just another data point. No it's not perfect. But we have had many data points on this specific issue (P-40 vs. Me 109) which start to reveal a pattern, I reviewed some of them upthread - the Russian records and aces commentary, the USAAF claims records for 57 FG, 325, 79, 33rd etc., the Australian unit records (and research by guys like Russel Brown), the commentaries by Australian and RAF aces and so on. Even the video by the modern stunt pilot Jeff Ethell remarking about how he had been wrong in his preconceptions about the P-40 and noting how maneuverable it was.

When the DAF and Soviet victory claims and unit records were posted, the challenge was that LW didn't have that many losses on the given day ,or any. I was initially just looking for cases where they clearly did suffer losses on the same day. You are taking it to another level which is fine, but even by this (stricter) standard, much stricter incidentally than we have been holding the LW claims generally speaking, of essentially assuming that any incident not specyou can see the pattern I was referring to. You think March 24 looks off? Ok but even by the most 'conservative' estimate, per MAW, combat on March 24, 29 and 31 add up to 9 Bf 109's lost vs. 3 P-40's. I call that a pattern.

S

 

[Glider]

You can always cherry pick dates.
1 Feb 1943
US Casualties
5 x P40 (2 crash landed)
2 x B17

Luftwaffe Casualties
1 x 109 shot down in combat with B17, 1 x 109 collided with a B17
3 x Ju87 shot down by P40 2 x JU87 Damaged
4 x Ju88 on naval mission

2 Feb 1943
US Casualties
9 x P40 shot down by 109, 1 x P40 crash landed at base,
1 x P38 shot down by a Me110
1 x P39 shot down by Fw190
Luftwaffe Casualties )
1 x Me 110 shot down 1 Damaged
1 x Fw190 40% damaged in combat, 1 x Fw190 belly landed with engine trouble
1 x Ju87 damaged
1 x Ju88 shot down

It was noted that by this time the 33 FG had lost nearly all its original compliment of 71 aircraft since the start of the campaign

 

[Schweik]

You can always cherry pick dates.
1 Feb 1943
US Casualties
5 x P40 (2 crash landed)
2 x B17

Luftwaffe Casualties
1 x 109 shot down in combat with B17, 1 x 109 collided with a B17
3 x Ju87 shot down by P40 2 x JU87 Damaged
4 x Ju88 on naval mission

2 Feb 1943
US Casualties
9 x P40 shot down by 109, 1 x P40 crash landed at base,
1 x P38 shot down by a Me110
1 x P39 shot down by Fw190
Luftwaffe Casualties )
1 x Me 110 shot down 1 Damaged
1 x Fw190 40% damaged in combat, 1 x Fw190 belly landed with engine trouble
1 x Ju87 damaged
1 x Ju88 shot down

It was noted that by this time the 33 FG had lost nearly all its original compliment of 71 aircraft since the start of the campaign

Yes - interesting find! But you do need to look carefully. 1 Feb counts as 3 lost, 2 crash landed (this is how I've been counting the P-40 claims against the Germans, otherwise we can revise the #'s in the list I posted above upwards). Altogether, when 13 fighters attack 37 enemy aircraft flying above them and shoot down 3 Ju 87's (actually five Ju 87 shot down or damaged with WiA crew were attributed to the P-40's in the German records) I call that a fairly good trade. I didn't see any mention of what happened to the Ju 88's so I can't say if any of those were shot down by P-40's though they might have. Only two Bf 109's made claims for P-40's that day, the rest were probably damaged by defensive fire from the bombers.

The FW 190 claimed by the P-40 pilots may correspond to the MC 202 which was shot down.

2 Feb does indeed look like a very bad day for the 33 FG but based on what Shores says in the descriptive text, 7 of those 9 kills were by Fw 190A's, and that is a different discussion altogether (and could be an interesting one). Right now we are debating Bf 109 vs. P-40.

More generally, while 33 FG may have lost all their original fighters by that point, I think most of those were lost to Flak and ground fire. Attrition is always high for WW2 combat units in 'high friction' areas like that, even successful ones, especially when operating as fighter bombers.

I also dislike the accusation that I'm cherry picking - I have not been doing that. I've been looking for clear examples. The majority of days of action are just mixed up - lots of aircraft types on both sides so it's hard to tell who got what - but usually the P-40 units were making claims and not suffering heavy losses. But I don't see a lot of Feb 2 type days in there with the USAAF units, do you?

Most of the really "bad days" for P-40 units seem to be due to Flak which was clearly devastatingly effective.

S

 

[Schweik]

Maybe we should just tally up all the days (at least the ones where you can untangle who did what) - you guys look for the days where the P-40's got wacked and I'll do the ones where the Bf 109's got the worst of it.

However no reason to bother with the earlier era with the Kittyhawk Mk. I's as i concede they had a lot of "bad days" then. My argument is regarding the late model P-40's.

S

 

[Stig1207]

Per your own remarks, you decided the outcome to all of this long before I even posted anything

No, I haven't concluded anything. I have pointed out that you can't take data at face value, when it's so lacking in detail as it particularly is on March 24. This goes for all such accounts of air combat, whether it is the Allies or the Axis your looking at.
With the cited case, you originally and steadfastly matched 6 33rd FG claims with 6 109 losses. Only 2 of those losses were in areas where the 33rd claimed. If you can connect the dots, and show that the 4 other losses were probably victims of the 33rd; rather than losses to the other Allied units making claims or disappearing somewhere over the Mediterranean sea, then I'll happily give you credit for you conclusion.

 

[Schweik]

No, I haven't concluded anything. I have pointed out that you can't take data at face value, when it's so lacking in detail as it particularly is on March 24. This goes for all such accounts of air combat, whether it is the Allies or the Axis your looking at.
With the cited case, you originally and steadfastly matched 6 33rd FG claims with 6 109 losses. Only 2 of those losses were in areas where the 33rd claimed. If you can connect the dots, and show that the 4 other losses were probably victims of the 33rd; rather than losses to the other Allied units making claims or disappearing somewhere over the Mediterranean sea, then I'll happily give you credit for you conclusion.

You know Stig, I was trying to just move past this particular issue. I hate the way forum discussions like this so often get bogged down in minutae and lose the big picture, it's not good for "signal to noise" but since you keep insisting on circling back to this yet again, fine, lets dive into it.. What you describe as my "steadfastedly" matching 6 claims to 6 losses, is totally wrong. For one thing, I said "fine put an asterix by that one and lets discuss the other ones." For another - actually bruh, you lost count. From my original post on this - P-40L pilots from 33 FG claimed 10 Bf 109's confirmed destroyed, 7 damaged and 1 probable - all during about a 2 hour period in the morning. The Spitfire unit (52nd FG) claimed 3 Bf 109 and 1 Fw 190 later in the evening of the same day.

P-40's made claims in two locations (Djebel Tebaga and Sebeitla / Subaytilah) across a distance of more than 260 km, which is consistent with Shores text description of a "running battle" taking place over a wide area. Plus one "over own aerodrome" which I'm not even certain where that is, but presumably it widens the zone quite a bit more. The Germans themselves reported 1 lost to a P-40, 1 lost to a Spitfire, and the rest they didn't say what shot them down, two were "unknown". This is common in air battles of course where the pilot seldom saw more than tiny dots to indicate an enemy aircraft and sometimes died without seeing anything at all. It's also clear there was some confusion in the German ranks, with the whole anecdote about the squadron commander Bar shooting down two "difficult" P-40's that his men were having trouble with, apparently being spurious (at least the part where he shot two down).

So yes, you are correct, we can't take data at face value - there is always fog of war. The best we can really do is say that the number of claims is or isn't consistent with the number of actual losses. You can try to match the areas where the planes went down, if it's known, but this isn't always accurate. None of it is. And with overclaiming, you can routinely assume that an average of 50% of the claims are wrong, usually because two or more pilots contributed to shooting down the same e/a, or thought they did.

On this day, I can point out that on March 24, 1943 US P-40 pilots claimed 10 Bf 109's shot down +7 damaged, Spitfires claimed 3, and actual losses were 7. Those are facts. As far as I know there is no actual evidence that any Bf 109's ran out of gas, and there is no reason to assume that the P-40 pilots wildly overclaimed while the Spitfires underclaimed. So the likelihood is that most of the losses were from the P-40's. I think that is the best you can do with 75 year old records, unless something else comes up. We do always get new data, but at best we can make an educated guess.

So here is mine. Provisionally, 1 lost to a Spitfire probably (based on German reports), and who knows about the JG 27 planes, maybe the Spitfires got them, maybe they did run out of gas, but the others were lost within or near the 260 km zone where the P-40 claims were made, so you could revise the total to 4 if you wanted to be very conservative. Actually if we had the times that would make it clearer.

But right now it fits a pattern:

23 March 1943 (USAAF 79 FG vs. JG 77 & JG 51) 2 Bf 109s lost to P-40's / 0 P40's lost
24 March 1943 (USAAF 79 FG vs. JG 77 & JG 53) 4 Bf 109s lost to P-40's (+1 to to Spit and 2 to unknown causes)/ 1 P40 lost
29 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 4 Bf 109 lost +2 crash-landed and 3 He 111's and 1 Ju 88 / 2 P-40's lost (1 to AA)
31 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 3 Bf 109 lost + 3 crash-landed / 1 P-40 lost

S

 

[Schweik]

Ok here is some more data from MAW, hopefully people will find this interesting.

This is all from MAW II pages 372-407. First I look at one early example of USAAF P-40's in action and then I go through daily summaries of an 8 day period ending with another detailed example. The first is a relatively simple one:

Tuesday 13 October 1942

• Twelve 4 Sqn SAAF Kittyhawk Mk 1's attacked a large formation of Ju -87's escorted by 28 Bf 109's from II. and III.//JG 27 and III./JG 53, claiming 2 plus several probable or damaged. 3 Kittyhawks were damaged but all made it back to base
• A Recon Spit IV was intercepted and shot down by German fighters
• Two Hurricanes from 274 Sqn collided with each other and crashed
• 12 P-40F's from 64,65, and 66 Sqn / 57 FG joined the SAAF Kittyhawks and attacked the German fighter escorts over the Stuka formation, claiming 4 Bf 109 for 1 lost. The fight took place at 20,000 and lasted 20 minutes.
• Later in the afternoon ten Bf 109's from III./ JG 27 and ten from III./JG 53 carried out a fighter sweep and were intercepted by ten Kittyhawks from 3 RAAF and ten P-40F's from the 57 FG, the Germans claiming 2.

All of the allied claims that day were by P-40's so that simplifies things, and all of the Bf 109 claims were by 57 FG. Altogether 4 SAAF claimed 2 Ju 87 and 57 FG claimed 2 Bf 109 plus 2 damaged. Luftwaffe claimed 5 P-40's, 2 Spitfires and a P-39.

Actual losses were 1 Spit IV Recon plane, which seems to have accidentally blundered into the fight, 1 P-40L (pilot MiA) and 3 Bf 109's, one allegedly to Flak, plus 1 Ju 87. Three SAAF Kittyhawks were damaged but made it back to base.

8./JG 53 Bf 109F-4 trop WNr 13061 crash landed from combat with P-40, 100% Uffz Hannes Augst safe
9./JG 53 Bf 109F-4 trop WNr 10175 Yellow 7+1 shot down AA; Obfw Werner Stumpf KiA*
7./JG 27 Bf 109F-4 trop WNr 8697 White 4 combat 10 km S El Alamein; Lt Erich Schofboch MiA
1./StG 3 Ju 87D-3 Wnr 2668 shot down by P-40, force-landed at El Daba, crew safe

* Stumpf was assigned victories for 2 Spitfires and a P-40, and it's likely he was shot down by the fighters not AA.

So for the day, 2-3 Bf 109's + 1 Ju-87 / for 1 Recon Spitfire & 1 P-40.

Next are a series of air battles leading up to The 2nd Battle of El Alamein.

These 7 out of 8 days in a row with action involving significant numbers of P-40's. Most of these are too complicated (for me at least) to tell who shot down whom, but I'll give the loss totals for each day.

19 Oct 1942 Hurricanes, Spits and Kittyhawk III's in action. Losses: 2 Bf 109 F4 (both said shot down by P-40) / 1 Kittyhawk I, 1 Spit V
20 Oct 1942 Huge fighting day involving dozens of RAF vs. dozens of Germans and Italians. Losses: 4 Bf 109, 2 Mc 202 / 9 Kittyhawks (5 of these Kittyhawk Mk. I)
21 Oct 1942 Hurricanes and Kittyhawk IIa and Spits vs. Luftwaffe and Italians. Losses: 2 Bf 109, 2 Mc 202 / 2 Kittyhhawk III, 1 Hurricane IIc and 1 Spit V
22 Oct 1942 Spits and Kittyhawks vs.Luftwaffe and Italians. Losses 4 Bf 109, 1 MC 202 / 4 Kittyhawk (2 Kittyhawk I 2 Kittyhawk III) and 1 Spit V
23 Oct 1942 More of the same. Losses 2 Bf 109, 1 MC 202 / 5 Kittyhawk + 1 Crash land.
(24 Oct didn't have significant P40 victories or losses)
25 Oct 1942 RAF Spits, Kittyhawks and Hurricanes make claims, as well as USAAF P-40F's from the 57th FG. Losses were 4 Bf 109 and 1 Ju 87 / for 1 Kittyhawk Mk 1
26 Oct 1942 another big battle day but here the USAAF 57 FG got involved. 5 Bf 109, 2 MC 202 and 4 Ju 87 lost / vs, 7 Kittyhawks and 2 Hurricanes (USAAF took no losses)
Finally 27 Oct 1942 yet another intense day, with RAF supported by USAAF 57 FG. Loses were 6 Bf 109's, 2 MC 202, 2 CR 42 / for 2 Kittyhawks and 3 Hurricanes. (USAAF took no losses)

For the whole eight day period, losses break down as follows:
(hopefully I counted these right but bear with me if i made a mistake)

29 Bf 109, 10 MC 202, 2 CR 42 + 5 Ju 87 for 31 P-40's, 3 Spit V's and 6 Hurricanes
Almost all the P-40's lost were RAF / Commonwealth, and about half of them were the older Kittyhawk I. If you consider just Bf 109 vs. P-40, the 109 comes out slightly ahead (29-31), but if you consider the MC 202's equivalent to the 109s, the P-40's are slightly ahead (31 P-40 + 3 Spits =34 front line fighters v.s 39). Either way it's pretty close. In this same period, if you take late model P-40's in isolation it's about 2-1 in their favor, if you take the USAAF P-40's in isolation they are way ahead of the Bf 109s they faced in terms of victory to loss ratio in this small sample of days (like 10-1), though that wasn't always the case obviously.

Of course, due to the complexity of the fighting and the various types of planes involved, nothing definitive can be said about the above numbers. I'm just trying to convey a pattern.

Ok so back to the detailed deep-dive. Here is the breakdown on Wednesday 27 Oct 1942, another big fight day where the Germans seem to have came out on the losing side. it's a bit complex but there were 5 main actions:

• RAF Spit Vs from 92, 145 Sqns went out early (~08:00) again and claimed 3 Bf 109s near Daba for no losses
  
• KIttyhawk IIIs from 250 Sqn and 112 Sqn RAF went out a little after (~09:00) and claimed 3 MC 202 near Fuka and lost 2 + 1 badly damaged
  
• Hurricane IIc from 33, 213 and 73 Sqns RAF went out in the afternoon (~16:00) and claimed 1 CR 42 and 2 Ju 87 plus multiple damaged, losing 3 + 4 badly damaged
• USAAF P-40F's from 64 and 65 Sqns / 57 FG went out multiple times in the afternoon between ~12:00 and ~17:00 and claimed 3 Bf 109s and 3 Cr 42, + 6 CR 42 damaged or probable and 1 MC 202 probable, for no losses.
• 4 Spit Vcs from 601 Squadron joined 3 RAAF Kittyhawks on a FB raid about the same time.

The first American action consisted of 8 bomb-laden P-40F's from 65 squadron / 57 FG escorted by 8 more P-40F's from 64 squadron 57 FG, who went up against a large group of 43 bomb-carrying CR 42s escorted by 10 Bf 109s from II./JG 27 and 8 from III./JG 27 as well as 7 MC 202's. 4 Spitfires from 601 squadron and 12 Hurricanes also joined the fight.

Later in the day, a second combat occurred when 66 Sqn / 57 FG P-40's encountered a flight of two Bf 109s from JG 77 - the commander said he saw enemy aircraft strafing, engaged them and shot down two, but was then himself shot down. This would appear to be overclaiming on his part because the planes in question were 33 FG P-40's who took no losses. This was the first combat by JG 77 in North Africa. Obfw Kaiser, the JG 77 commander, was apparently shot down by US Ace Lt Lyman Middleditch who claimed 3 Bf 109's during the day.

Total "confirmed" claims by RAF Spit Vs for 3 Bf 109s, Kittyhawk II's for 3 MC 202s for 2 lost, Hurricanes 2 Ju 87 + 1 CR 42 for 3 lost
Total "confirmed" claims by USAAF P-40Fs for 3 Bf 109s and 3 Cr 42s for no losses (1 badly damaged but returned to base).

DAF Losses: 2 RAF Kittyhawks and 3 Hurricanes (+4 Hurricanes and 1 Kittyhawk damaged), plus 1 A-20 lost to Flak.

Germans from JG 27 and JG 77 claimed 3 Spitfires, a Hurricane, a P-39, and 7 P-40's for 6 losses
Italians MC 202 pilots from 96, 74, 70, an d75 sqns claimed 1 Spitfire, 5 P-46s and 4 P-40's for 2 MC lost and 4 CR 42

Axis losses were: 6 Bf 109's, 2 MC 202, 2 CR 42 (+2 Crash landed) and 1 Ju 87 lost to fighters and 2 more lost to Flak

Axis losses were:

4./JG 27 Bf 109F-4 WNr 7345 combat, force-landed 50% Fw Bernhard Schneider safe
4./JG 27 Bf 109F-4 trop WNr 8345 combat; crash-landed Qotafiya 60%; Fw Alfred Heidel safe
5./JG 27 Bf 109G-2 trop WNr 10336 combat, crash-landed 40%; Fw Josef Vavra safe
6./JG 27 Bf 109F-4 WNr 7151 Yellow 10, combat, crashed in sea 15 km NE El daba Obfw Fritz Luer MiA
8./JG 27 Bf 109F-4 WNr 7489 combat, force landed El Daba, 80% pilot safe
8./JG 77 Bf 109G-2 WNr 10640 combat with P-40 95% damaged crash-landed in Qasaba area; Obfw Herbert Kaiser MiA, returned
96 Sq MC.202 MM 9046 failed to return, S Ten Ettore Caregnato MiA
96 Sq MC.202 MM 7829 failed to return, Ten Anselmo Maggini MiA
238 Sq CR 42 MM 8936 shot down into the sea, Serg Magg Urbano Suzzi MiA
387 Sq CR 42 MM 8491 caught fire after force landing, pilot Cap Giordano Bruno Rossoni WiA rescured the next day by Fi 156 Stoch

2 other CR 42's force landed but were later recovered.

Based on a close reading of the text and comparison of the claims made, I would attribute 3 Bf 109's to the RAF Spits, 3 Bf 109's to the US 57 FG P-40's, the 2 MC 202's to the RAF Kittyhawks, the Ju 87 to the Hurricanes. The 4 CR 42's shot down or force landed probably split between the Hurricanes and the 57 FG.

It's worth making note of how much the Luftwaffe and Italians overclaimed here as well - together they claimed 22 aircraft shot down but actually got 5.

S

 

[Stig1207]

P-40's made claims in two locations (Djebel Tebaga and Sebeitla / Subaytilah)

25 March
59 FS/ 33FG 42-10599 ran into B-26 landing at Sbeitla 12:35 (MAWIII, p, 409)

So it seems Sbeitla was the 33rd FG base, so that seems to fit well with a running fight. As a curiously, it seems it was not the 321st BG that they were escorting:

'The sixth mission took off at 1435 on March 24, 1943 with
15 planes to bomb Djebel Tebaga (N).
http://57thbombwing.com/321stHistory/321_BG_1943-03.pdf

So the 33rd FG claims are at Djebil Tebaga and Sbeitla, and correspond to 2 Jg 77 losses. However, I am having a hard time seeing how you are verifying the Jg 53 losses against these claims. Mateur is NW of Tunis and Porto Farina (Ghar al Milh) is north of Tunis, 200+ km from Sbeitla; Wendt was lost NE of Porto Farina?

 

[Schweik]

25 March
59 FS/ 33FG 42-10599 ran into B-26 landing at Sbeitla 12:35 (MAWIII, p, 409)

So it seems Sbeitla was the 33rd FG base, so that seems to fit well with a running fight. As a curiously, it seems it was not the 321st BG that they were escorting:

'The sixth mission took off at 1435 on March 24, 1943 with
15 planes to bomb Djebel Tebaga (N).
http://57thbombwing.com/321stHistory/321_BG_1943-03.pdf

So the 33rd FG claims are at Djebil Tebaga and Sbeitla, and correspond to 2 Jg 77 losses. However, I am having a hard time seeing how you are verifying the Jg 53 losses against these claims. Mateur is NW of Tunis and Porto Farina (Ghar al Milh) is north of Tunis, 200+ km from Sbeitla; Wendt was lost NE of Porto Farina?

Well, it's a bit of a mystery. I was curious about it too so I looked it up yesterday, and according to this, the 33 FG base at that time was a place called Berteaux, Algeria

33rd Fighter Group

Apparently the airfield was a substantial hardened complex and is still there, overgrown with weeds.

Berteaux Airfield - Wikipedia

The wiki says it's roughly between Telerghma and Constantine Algeria, which is in the North East of that country, roughly parallel with Tunis. So a running fight which started all the way down near Gabes could cover quite a bit of northern Tunisia -it's a 500 km diagonal line but we don't know what the actual route was that they flew. They may have been avoiding flak concentrations or other Axis airfields.

MAW 2 shows 4 Bf 109G lost all from JG 77

2./JG 77 30 km SE Fatnassa Nord - (that is down south near the "Chott el Jerid" lake, near the target area)
8./JG 77 shot down by Spit near Maknassy (also in the target area)
9./JG 77 shot down by P-40 90 KM West of Bou Thadi (that is right in the target area)
6./JG 77 shot up near Gabes (near the target area)

MAW 3 shows the losses from JG 53 and JG 27
4./JG 53 shot down near Mateur, that is north Tunisia
5./JG 53 shot down NE Porto Farina also north east Tunisia
6./JG 27 lost (no location)
6./JG 27 lost (no location)
...and then the same 4 JG. 77 losses from MAW 3

I see your point that the JG 53 losses are from pretty far north, but that doesn't match any other claims for the day since the 52nd FG (Spitfire) claims are all down near the same area as the P-40 claims. All the (mostly spurious) German claims (from JG 77 and JG 51) were in the same area as well.

There were no claims for the far NE of Tunisia that I can find.The most likely explanation to me is that they (and the JG 27 losses) were part of the big running fight. I'm open to new evidence though.

It just seems unlikely to me that the LW lost 4 Bf 109's to random mishaps on the same day that Allied fighters claimed 14 shot down.

S

 

[Schweik]

I guess my gist is this - at 300 mph you can go 50 miles in ten minutes. 25 miles in 5 minutes. During a chase, they will easily reach those speeds and considerably higher. The fights which start out organized in large formations typically broke up into small 2-4 plane groups and individuals spread out a long way.

So it doesn't seem impossible that in a 'running fight' across ~ 300 miles distance, you could see individual combats breaking out to end up 30-40 miles away from the main group.

S

 

[Stig1207]

So it doesn't seem impossible that in a 'running fight' across ~ 300 miles distance, you could see individual combats breaking out to end up 30-40 miles away from the main group.

The technical performance of WWII fighters is not my strong point, but I do seriously doubt that Bf 109's had the combat radius that allowed for a 300 mile running fight! That's without considering the need for them get back to base. I had seen the info placing the 33rd in the Constantine area, though my source said main base, so I assume they sometimes deployed to forward airfields.
There are no claims for the Mateur loss but I note that 81 Sqn fly sweeps of this area the following days, making claims for 109's, destroyed / damaged. It is not unlikely that their is a mix up in dates , missing records, etc. The second Jg53 aircraft is not listed as shot down, but to unknown causes, and NE Porto Farina probably places the loss over the sea.
II/ Jg27 were tasked wtih convoy patrols, escorts for transport aircraft flying to Tunesia and armed reconnaissance patrols over Malta. That should give ample possibility for 2 of their 109's FTR, presumed lost over the sea due lack of fuel; even though not knowing what there specific mission was.
As their are numerous accounts of Allied aircraft FTR for unknown reasons, or lost due to engine failure, running out of fuel, etc; I am fairly confident that the same fate could also befall Axis aircraft.

There are no 33rd FG claims further N, NW, or NE of Sbeitla and no 109 losses in the Constantine area.

 

[Schweik]

The technical performance of WWII fighters is not my strong point, but I do seriously doubt that Bf 109's had the combat radius that allowed for a 300 mile running fight! That's without considering the need for them get back to base.

Probably not if it was the same squadron involved in the fight from beginning to end. If, on the other hand, JG 77 got involved in action with enemy planes and then one or more other squadrons from other gruppe (i.e. JG 27 and JG 53 on this particular day) joined in to help them, as had happened on so many other occasions, for example IIRC with JG 51 on the previous day (March 23).

I had seen the info placing the 33rd in the Constantine area, though my source said main base, so I assume they sometimes deployed to forward airfields.

Hmmm. Why didn't you mention that earlier then? Well, we don't actually know they were in a forward base, seems reasonable, but it is another guess. The only data i have is that they were in Northern Algeria on that date. you are making a series of assumptions to explain away LW losses on a day when allied pilots made 14 claims.

As their are numerous accounts of Allied aircraft FTR for unknown reasons, or lost due to engine failure, running out of fuel, etc; I am fairly confident that the same fate could also befall Axis aircraft.

Well, if there was a FTR on an allied aircraft on a day when Luftwaffe fighter pilots made claims that were not otherwise accounted for, then I assume they were shot down by the LW.

If we take your proposal seriously and extend it to it's logical extreme we could assume that half of the validated claims on both sides were actually coincidental accidents - planes ran out of gas, had mechanical failures, got lost or ditched in the sea for no reason without encountering the enemy. The truth is of course we don't actually know, they didn't have GPS transponders on them, I just think you go with the most likely scenario given the data available.

S

 

[Stig1207]

The truth is of course we don't actually know, they didn't have GPS transponders on them, I just think you go with the most likely scenario given the data available.