Bf-109 vs P-40

[michael rauls]

Agreed - it's also a lesson in how tactics and field modifications could make a major difference in outcomes. The 325th FG were real killers, they had a very good leader who was himself an Ace (Lt. Col. Robert Baseler) who was simultaneously flexible and disciplined.

The lightening of the aircraft (later built-in with the P-40L), tweaking the engines for higher boost, flying in pairs and using special tactics, and being able to specialize in fighter operations instead of a heavy emphasis on fighter-bomber sorties all made a big difference.

View attachment 523139 View attachment 523140
Apparently he had a competition with his crew, he kept painting 'stud' on the plane, they kept painting 'mortimer snerd' on it. It went back and forth.


One thing the 325th did on at least two occasions was to use one lower flying squadron as bait, flying out ahead of the others. The first squadron would be attacked by the Bf 109s or MC 205 / 202s, and would 'pull' their pursuers out to sea, where they would be 'bounced' from out of the Sun by the other squadron or sometimes two squadrons, while the original bait squadron would initiate a hard 180 degree turn and rejoin the fight. This is what apparently happened on July 22 and July 30, to the Italians and Luftwaffe respectively.

325th converted to P-47s in September though so their time using P-40s was pretty short. Later they converted again to P-51s.

Verry cool stuff. Not sure if I mentioned this already but another conventional wisdom trope about the p40 that I have read for years, decades actually, is that there were no allied units oparating the p40 in front line service in Europe by the end of the war. Well ive fairly recently found out that there were at least 3, the 450th, 250th, and I think 150th RAAF still flying p40s in fron line service right up until VE day.

 

[Schweik]

Yeah as "kittybombers" - kinda feel sorry for some of those squadrons as they got turned into bomber units.

I think some of the CBI fighter units were still operating P-40s in 1945 too, like 51st FG, they converted to P-51s some time in 1945 I think a few months into it.

This is a pretty epic photo of one of their P-40s, worth a click

 

[michael rauls]

Yeah as "kittybombers" - kinda feel sorry for some of those squadrons as they got turned into bomber units.

I think some of the CBI fighter units were still operating P-40s in 1945 too, like 51st FG, they converted to P-51s some time in 1945 I think a few months into it.

This is a pretty epic photo of one of their P-40s, worth a click

View attachment 523175

There was at least one US unit oparating then in the CBI right up until the end. I can't remember the number right now. I'll do a little digging and see if I can remember.

 

[michael rauls]

Yeah as "kittybombers" - kinda feel sorry for some of those squadrons as they got turned into bomber units.

I think some of the CBI fighter units were still operating P-40s in 1945 too, like 51st FG, they converted to P-51s some time in 1945 I think a few months into it.

This is a pretty epic photo of one of their P-40s, worth a click

View attachment 523175

Schweik,
I promised I'd try and find the units oparating p40s till the end of the war in the CBI. So far the only concrete example I've been able to dig up is the 23rd fighter group.
I know ive seen reference to a couple others over the years including one group that was part Chineese pilots and partly American( i think it was officially a USAAF unit if I remember right). I'll keep looking but the 23rd is at least one of them.

 

[Glider]

I do admit to getting a little piqued when accused of making mistakes, some of course are inevitable . The phrase to err is to be human is very true however context is so important in these situations.

May 27 1943 (US 325th FG vs. Italian 51 and 42 Stormo) 3 x MC 202 lost / 0 P-40s lost

In reality the Italians lost 2 x Mc202 and 1 x 202 damaged whilst the 325th lost one P40 which hit the sea. The combat was 14 x Mc202 and 2 x Mc205 vs 35 x P40 escorting 26 x B26. The Italians attacked both the P40's and the B26's aggressively and the B26 Gunners claimed a total of seven Bf109. I believe it would be wrong to assume that both the Mc202 losses were by the P40's. The Damaged Mc202 was noted as being return fire presumably by the bombers.
Here with 35 escorting fighters against 16 attacking fighters some of which clearly attacked the bombers I would have been amazed if the P40's had lost more than the Italians.

May 28 1943 (US 325th FG and 14th FG [P-38] vs JG 27 and Italian 41 and 150 Stormo) 3 x Bf 109G-4 and G-6 lost**, 1 x Bf 109G (Italian) lost / 1 P-40 and 1 P-38 lost

There were a number of combats this day and the total claims made by the the US forces were :-
B17 Gunners 1 x Bf109, 1 x Mc202. Note only Italians attacked this force
48 x P40 325 FG 6 x Bf109
24 x B26's being escorted by the P40's claimed 7 x Bf109
B25's 11 x Bf109 1 x Mc202
P38's claimed 2 x Bf109
Across the entire day the Luftwaffe did lose three Bf109's but they fought a number of actions and again to assume that they only had losses against the P40's I believe would be a mistake.
A pilot from the 325th states that he was in a unit of 48 aircraft and they spotted about 13 mixed Mc202 and Bf 109's intercepting. Again we have a situation where a heavily outnumbered Axis force attacked both the escort and the bombers so to expect them to shoot more P40's down than their losses would be a significant achievement.

I am having serious computer issues and will come back to the rest later,

 

[Schweik]

Glider,

If you read that post you are responding to, I carefully distinguished between days when multiple fighters made claims, and days when only P-40 units made claims which are indicated in bold. On days when P-38's, Spits etc. also made claims it's usually too hard to tell which unit caused what losses. I included a few of those days just to convey a sense of the fighting.

Defensive gunners on bombers seemed to have usually overclaimed at a much higher rate than fighter pilots. Often ten to 1 or more, though there are some exceptions (esp. B-17 gunners seem to have scored some real kills).

I'm having computer problems too and will be limited somewhat in my responses until some time next week.

 

[Glider]

June 6 1943 (US 325th FG and 52FG [Spit V] vs JG 27 and JG 53) 3 x Bf 109 shot down*** / 0 P-40 shot down

On this day three Bf109's were lost and no P40's were shot down. However one 109 was shot down by a Spitfire, one was damaged by Boston's, then shot down by Italian flak and the third was shot down just by the Italian flak. Not a good day for the Italian flak gunners, or a good day depending on how you look at it.
There was a combat between the P40's who were escorting B26's and 109's with claims made by both sides but the book is clear that there were no losses to either side.

June 10 1943 (US 325th and 79th FG and 31st FG [Spit] vs JG 27 and JG 53, and Italian 161, 22, and 53 Stormos) 15 x Bf 109s lost, 8 MC 202 lost**** / 3 P-40s lost

There was a lot of fighting on this day in a fairly small area and there is no doubt that the allies came out on top and the numbers quoted above are good. As far as the P40's are concerned the narrative states that they believe that the
325th fought II/JG27 twice that day losing 3 x P40 against 2 x Bf109. Two of the P40's were lost on the first mission and the third on the second.
79th FG were also involved in an action. 6 x Bf109 and 24 x Mc202 went to attack Boston's and B24's that were escorted by approx. 50 Spitfires of 31st FG and then ran into approx. 40 P40's whilst trying to extricate themselves from the initial action, with not surprisingly heavy casualties on the Axis side

I am not going to continue with this as its a major task and the point has been made. The axis forces were heavily outnumbered in most cases and more than held their own.

 

[Schweik]

I guess you didn't read my last post, and clearly only skimmed the post you are replying to. I already mentioned all the other claims you listed on June the 10th for example in the original post.

The days you went over above had multiple claims by different fighter units flying different aircraft, which I already pointed out twice (so far).

The decisive actions (indicated in bold in my original text) took place on the days when P40 units were operating on their own in areas where no other Allied fighters were operating. Namely July 8, 22, 26 and 30.

All the victories on July 30 are particularly notable as only one squadron - the 317th fighter squadron of the 325th Fighter Group made claims. The fight was between that squadron and possibly one other against at least two and probably three squadrons of JG 77. The Germans claimed 5 P40s while 325 FG claimed 21 109s. Shores summary of the actual losses were "five or six" BF 109s and one P-40.

The Germans themselves reported three of their losses as "shot down in combat P-40". Pretty hard to refute.

 

[Schweik]

Similarly on the 22nd of July , Shores notes 325 FG encountered "a strong force of MC 202 and 205s" from two squadrons of 155 Gruppo. Actual US losses were 2 Warhawks, per Shores "...the Italian losses were considerably more serious" consisting of 3 x MC 205 and 2 x MC 202 shot down or crash landed, plus 2 more MC 205 " shot up" and 2 or 3 other non fighter aircraft I didn't even bother to list shot down.

Like in the previous example the Italians attributed several of their own losses specifically to P 40's.

MC 205 by the way armed with 2x Mg 151 / 20mm plus 2 × 12.7 mm mg so hardly "under armed."

 

[Schweik]

As for the June 10 engagement you mentioned, you have some omissions. In your claim that the original 30 Axis fighters 6x Bf 109s and 24 x MC 202s were "heavily outnumbered" - a couple of points.

Worth pointing out all 6 of the Spitfire claims at the time of that engagement were by one (1) squadron, the 309th FS of the 31st FG. Implying that only that squadron was engaged. They claimed 6 and got 7.

Then the Axis group engaged 79th FG P 40s, and 15 of their 17 claims were by one (87th) squadron. 2 more claims were from the 85th FS. Shores in fact points out that only these two squadrons were engaged, so probably no more than 30 fighters.

The biggest omission though seems to be that you forgot to note that at least 12 x additional Bf 109s from the famous JG 27 also joined the fray when the P-40s were attacking seaplanes at low altitude. Shores mentions one of these colliding with a P 40 and losing a wing.

German casualties that day included 13 x BF 109s from (4, 5, 6 and II squadrons of) JG 27. Plus two others from JG 53 and one other unit.

Italians lost 8 x MC 202s

Shores lists 3 P 40s lost in the day, two from 325 FG and one from 79th FG

 

[Schweik]

So I'm not so sure they were outnumbered at all. The Italians claimed to have engaged first 40 and then 50 Spitfires, which they claim to have shot down 9 Spitfires.

They seem to have ACTUALLY engaged one squadron of Spitfires and then two squadrons of P-40Fs, of which they shot down one of the latter.

Then at least 12 Bf 109s joined the fight and seem to have gotten waxed.

 

[Glider]

As for the June 10 engagement you mentioned, you have some omissions. In your claim that the original 30 Axis fighters 6x Bf 109s and 24 x MC 202s were "heavily outnumbered" - a couple of points.

Worth pointing out all 6 of the Spitfire claims at the time of that engagement were by one (1) squadron, the 309th FS of the 31st FG. Implying that only that squadron was engaged. They claimed 6 and got 7.

Then the Axis group engaged 79th FG P 40s, and 15 of their 17 claims were by one (87th) squadron. 2 more claims were from the 85th FS. Shores in fact points out that only these two squadrons were engaged, so probably no more than 30 fighters.

That a re run of the RAF were not outnumbered during the BOB because all the escorts were not in combat at the same time argument

The biggest omission though seems to be that you forgot to note that at least 12 x additional Bf 109s from the famous JG 27 also joined the fray when the P-40s were attacking seaplanes at low altitude. Shores mentions one of these colliding with a P 40 and losing a wing.

Please read the narrative with more care. the 12 x 109s escorting the seaplane were from II/JG 27 which only lost two Bf 109's during the day. If one did crash from losing its wing then only one was shot down earlier

Shores lists 3 P 40s lost in the day, two from 325 FG and one from 79th FG

Correct but in the narrative it is clear that he refers to three losses from the 325 FG two in the first action and one in the second. You say two I say three the book says both, you pays your money and back the one you want

 

[Schweik]

So whats your excuse about July 30?

 

[Schweik]

That a re run of the RAF were not outnumbered during the BOB because all the escorts were not in combat at the same time argument

Its funny because if you read it, its clear Allied units were often outnumbered. The opening engagement was ten Spitfires of the US 31st FG vs 36 Bf 109s.

The whole day over Pantelleria involved 7 x US fighter squadrons (307th and 309th sqns / 31st FG [Spitfires], 64th sqn / 57th FG [P-40F], 317 and 319 sqns /325th FG [P -40F], and 85th and 87th sqns /79th FG [P-40F]) and 1 x RAF (185 sqn [Spitfire IX])

Vs

9 x German fighter Squadrons (5., 8., and 9. / JG 53 and 4., 5. and 6 / JG 27) plus HQ units from both groups (II. /JG 53 and II JG 27) plus no less than 9 x Italian Sqns (154, 163, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 373 and 374)

All of the above either made claims or took losses or both. No doubt some Axis units were under strength, and you could assume that all four US FG were there in full strength (with some sqns just not involved in the fighting) but that would still be 13 Allied vs 18 Axis fighter squadrons.

There were 3 more RAF Spitfire sqns in action over Malta but even adding those doesnt change the ratio.

So I would say it is hardly a case of the Luftwaffe being heavily outnumbered, even if you really want them to be.

Please read the narrative with more care. the 12 x 109s escorting the seaplane were from II/JG 27 which only lost two Bf 109's during the day. If one did crash from losing its wing then only one was shot down earlier

Correct but in the narrative it is clear that he refers to three losses from the 325 FG two in the first action and one in the second. You say two I say three the book says both, you pays your money and back the one you want

If you read it carefully he's saying that 2 were lost for the day.

But here's the bigger problem with your narrative. The Germans and Italians took too many losses to account for.

Allied fighter pilots made 35 claims that day:

185 sqn RAF (Spitfire IX) claimed 2
307 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 5
309 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 6
309 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 1 later on

Thats 14

325 FG (P-40F) claimed 5 fighters
79th FG (P-40F) claimed 16 fighters

Thats 21

Actual Axis losses were 23 fighters. So even if you assume for some reason that none of the Spitfire units overclaimed and all of the P40 units did, it still leaves 9 Bf 109s unaccounted for.

Are we to assume they all had engine trouble? UFO's? I think its more likely that at least 9 Axis fighters fell to the P 40 pilots.

If we assume roughly the same rate of overclaiming by 31st, 325th and 79th FG, it is clear that the P 40 units dominated the Luftwaffe, with probably more like 8 or 9 falling to Spits and 13 or 14 to the P -40s.

If this had been some stand out fluke I could see reason for the extreme skepticism. But its almost every day during the Pantelleria campaign.

Look at June 8 1943- 79th FG P-40Fs made 6 claims, 52nd FG Spitfires claimed 1, 1st FG P-38s made 1. Italian pilots claimed 8 Spitfires and 1 x P 38 Actual losses were 2 x MC 205 and 3 x MC 202 and no Allied fighters. Even if you assume 2 were lost to the Spit and P 38, that leaves 3 for the P 40s for no losses.

This was btw. from a large Axis unit of 40 fighters.

I agree there is wiggle room in many of these activity summaries, and you could try to push one way or the other. I had previously pointed out June 10 as just such a day. Other days are far more cut snd dry however, and the overall pattern is very clear. The P 40 had no trouble contending with late model Bf 109s, MC 205s, MC 202s Re 2002s or Fw 190s during the operations from May through July 1943 and in fact almost always came out with 3-1 or better margins. They did not always outnumber their opponents and were often on their own such as over Sardinia where 325th FG scored so many victories

S

 

[Glider]

So whats your excuse about July 30?

Small point but I don't do excuses. I try for reasons and on this day, the P40's did very well, no question.

 

[Schweik]

I looked at June 6 again and I think you are right about that one. Certainly can't be sure they were P 40 victories. June 7 looks solid though, 3 to 5 P 40 victories for no losses.

 

[CORSNING]

This is just an FYI and probably doesn't answer anyone's questions, but it is
somewhat interesting. The following information comes from page 247 of
AHT by Francis Dean:

"Jul,'45- The USAAF continues to use the P-40-mainly in the Pacific and
Mediterranean areas, and in July there is a single P-40N group in the Pacific."

"Jul23,'45-RAAF Kittihawks bomb a final target in Borneo. The RAAF, at its
peak, has 14 fighter squadrons, of which eight are equipped with Kittihawks.
In addition, Dutch Sdn. 120 equipped with Kittihawks, accompanied the RAAF.
The RNZAF at its peak has seven Kittihawk squadrons and has received a
total of 293 of the Curtiss fighters."

"(19)'49-P40N aircraft are being used by the Netherlands East Indies against
the Indonesian rebels. This is the last combat use of the P-40."

"(19)'58-Some P-40N aircraft are still in service in Brazil."

By the way, Jeff .......

 

[Schweik]

I found one more group that flew P-40F/L in Italy, 27th Fighter Group, previously 27th Fighter Bomber group (and a bunch of other stuff befor that going back to the Philippines as an A 24 / Dauntless bomber group)

Anyway they had been flying A-36 (P 51 dive bombers) in Italy from 1943 until Jan 44, then as the A-36 was being phased out they switched to P-40F which was complete by March. Operated as a mixed P-40 / A36 unit through Anzio.

As there were limited P-40 F or L available I suspect these were hand me downs, probably a little worn out, from the other 5 FG. Same as was done for the Free French unit. Due to scarcity of Merlin P-40s they may have also used P-40K or N though I have no evidence. The 99th FS (Tuskegee) apparently had some P-40Ns for a short period.

In May the 27th were renamed the 27th Fighter Group (as distinct from Fighter Bomber). In June they started to convert to P-47s.

So it seems we do have one case of (Allison) Mustangs with Warhawks.

 

[Schweik]

27th Fighter Group

 

[Schweik]

For what it's worth, as far as I have been able to determine the following RAF / Commonwealth combat squadrons converted from Hurricanes to P-40s in the Western Desert (use of some types overlapped). It was a total of 7 combat squadrons in all:

From 239 Wing:

112 Sqn RAF (Hurricanes I in the first half of 41, Tomahawk in the second half, Kittyhawk I from Winter 41, Kittyhawk III in 1942, Kittyhawk IV in early 44, then Mustang III in late 44)
250 Sqn RAF (Hurricane I and IIB and IIC from February to April 42, Kittyhawk I and II April - October 42, Kittyhawk III from October 42, then Kittyhawk II again, then Kittyhawk IV in 44, and finally Mustang III from August 45)
260 Sqn RAF (Hurricane I and II from Nov 41 - Feb 42, Tomahawk II from Feb - Mar 42, Kittyhawk I from Feb - Sep 42, Kittyhawk IIA from Jun 42 - May 43, Kittyhawk III from Dec 43-Mar 44, Mustang III from Apr 44- Aug 45)
3 Sqn RAAF (Gladiators and Gauntlets - and a few Lysanders- in 1940, then Hurricanes in 1941, then Tomahawks in late 1941, then Kittyhawks from 1942- Nov 1944, then Mustang IV)
450 Sqn RAAF (Hurricane from May-Dec 41, Kittyhawk I and Ia from Dec 41 - Sept 42, Kittyhawk III from Sept 42 - Oct 43, Kittyhawk IV from Oct 43 - Aug 45, Mustang III from May 45-Aug 45)

from 223 Wing
4 Sqn SAAF (Hurricanes from March 41 - plus some Mohawks - Tomahawks from Sept 41, Kittyhawks from some time in 42, then Spitfires in July 43)
2 Sqn SAAF (Gladiator and Gladiator II from 1940, Hurricane in early 1941, Tomahawk IIB June 41 - May 42, Kittyhawk I Apr 42 - June 43, Kittyhawk III, June 43 - July 43, Spitfire VC from July 43 - march 44, Spitfire IX from Feb 44 - July 45)

As far as I can tell, one unit, 239 Squadron RAF operating as a recon unit from England switched from Lysanders (Sep 40 - Jan 42) to Tomahawk I and IIa (from Jun 41 to May 42) to Hurricane I and IIc (from Jan 42- because they didn't like the Tomahawk). Then they were converted to the Fairey Battle in Jun 42!!! Then the Miles Master in March 42, then finally to Mustang I in May 42, and Beaufighters in Oct 43 and then Mosquitoes from Dec 43.

I couldn't find any Western Desert units that switched from P-40 to Hurricane though I am not saying there weren't any. I just couldn't find it if there was.

5 Sqn SAAF never got Hurricanes to begin with (Mohawk Vk, Dec 41 with Tomahawk IIB, late 42 with Kittyhawk III, Kittyhawk IV in 1944)

In addition, some Canadian squadrons which seem to have been home-defense units based on Canada's Pacific coast, converted from Hurricanes to Kitythawks, but I don't consider these combat units. They included:

133 Squadron British Columbia (converted from Hurricanes to Kittyhawks in March 44, then to Mosquitoes)
135 Squadron Patricia Bay (converted from Hurricanes to Kittyhawks in May 44)
163 Squadron Sea Island (converted from Hurricanes to Kittyhawks in Oct 43)