Bf-109 vs P-40

I found the one squadron in the Middle East- 73 Sqn RAF started with Hurricane I, briefly had Tomahawk IIBs but then switched to Hurricane IIB. They appear to have flown ground attack missions, even after they switched to the Spitfire Mk V in June 43

Schweik said:

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)

Click to expand...

Wow they went all Warhawks
What were the reasons the Brits changed planes to the Warhawk !??
Did they ever use/use up the Hurricanes that were replaced with US Fighters?

The Hurricanes weren't deemed suitable for air to air combat after roughly 1942. They started switching to Tomahawks and then Kittyhawks in 41, by mid 42 all the Remaining Hurricanes were in FB units or ground attack units. They were basically bombers from that point onward.

A sample....

....from this 59pg. book, "RAF Strength M.E. and Med. Command, 1941-1945". There are also "RAF Strength Far East Command, 1942-1945" and "RAF Strength-Fighter-Bomber Coastal Commands, 1939-1945"

Interesting but... relevance? Am I missing something? Isn't that for 1945?

True but the book goes from '41-'45. Its the first page I opened so I posted it. I'm heading into camp now but I'll go through it when I get home on Wednesday I'll go the 1942 section and post Hurricane and P-40 strengths

Oh Ok. Thanks. Shores lists them for a few specific dates in MAW as well.

If you want, I can PM you the books when I get home and you can compare them to Shores books

Sure, sounds like they might be good to have in the library

PM sent

Schweik said:

The Hurricanes weren't deemed suitable for air to air combat after roughly 1942. They started switching to Tomahawks and then Kittyhawks in 41, by mid 42 all the Remaining Hurricanes were in FB units or ground attack units. They were basically bombers from that point onward.

Click to expand...

Thanks !

Begs the question..
Brits using the P40 with the Merlin -1 or -81 Allison during the Battle of Britain
Not sure if they were available then.
May have been a better platform !!
One advantage they carried more fuel to stay on station.

Dan Fahey said:

Thanks !

Begs the question..
Brits using the P40 with the Merlin -1 or -81 Allison during the Battle of Britain
Not sure if they were available then.
May have been a better platform !!
One advantage they carried more fuel to stay on station.

Click to expand...

The P40 of the summer of 1940 wasn't combat ready, lacking a number of essential features such as armour, self sealing fuel tanks, altitude performance and a decent radio.

The Allison available during the BoB was the C-15 version and in fact the first 277 in U.S. service in 1940 had to be derated to under close to 950 hp at 2770 rpm until reworked at the factory.
P-40s in the summer and early fall of 1940 were not combat ready.

Agreed. And by the time the faster versions were ready, they weren't fast enough to attack integrated defense systems around the German occupied side of the English Channel. That was where the Mustang I was ideal for a while.

I'm splitting off a P-40 / MC202 / Bf 109 debate which emerged as a derail from this thread:

"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs

Ivan1GFP said:

Actually there was no need to comment because the numbers you were listing were not really in disagreement with the numbers I had already seen. Average monthly availability in North Africa for 1942 was about 30-70 Folgores.
The only number that seems to be in dispute is the percentage of sorties flown by Folgore.

- Ivan.

Click to expand...

Par for the course I guess, never let facts get in the way of a good theory eh?

Ok despite the futility let's summarize what I posted on this so far:

Feb 1942
38 x MC.202, 81 x MC.200 and G.50, and 61 x CR 42 - fits your theory

November 1942
146 MC.202, 21 Re 2001, 12 MC.200, 26 G.50bis and 72 CR 42 fighter bombers- doesn't fit your theory

June 1943
6 x Bf 109, 11 x MC 205, 10 x Re 2005, 32 x MC 202, 4 x MC 20, 4 x D.520, 17 x CR.42 - doesn't fit your theory either


In addition –

I finally found that post I had made long ago. It is here. It shows the match up right before El Alamein.

From Shores the theoretical Allied fighter strength was 336 fighters (128 Kittyhawks, 128 Hurricanes, 32 Hurricane IID, 75 Warhawks, and 48 Spitfires) by theoretical I mean it does not show on-hand aircraft like I've been showing for the Italians and for the Germans in that post. The hard core of this group are the 48 Spitfires, 75 P-40F/L, and 60 x RAF Kittyhawk II and III for 183.
Total Axis on-hand fighter strength ads up to 307 front line (Bf 109 and MC.202) fighters plus 150 Cr.42 fighter bombers, 12 Bf 109E Jabo and 46 Bf 110.
German actual fighter strength (via Shores for August 1942) was 92 x Bf 109F, 12 x Bf 109E, 46 x Bf 110

If you counted the CR 42s the Allies were actually outnumbered (457-336) though as I said due to fuel shortages and their vulnerability the biplanes rarely flew.

And then the Italian strength, which no wonder I couldn't find it in Shores as it was derived from this website.

Here is what the website shows. Before the Battle of El Alamein in October 1942:

• 210 x Macchi 202 in 7 groups
• 150 CR 42 "Fighter Bombers" in 5 groups
• 1 group / 20-30 planes of Ju 87
• 1 group / 20 planes of Z 1007 bombers
• 2 groups / 40 planes of Sm.79

Then for November 1942 it once again shows 147 fighters, 85 fighter bombers and 61 bombers in Libya specifically – which matches almost exactly the number of MC.202 I listed above from Shores for that same month; plus another 184 fighters in Sicily and 33 in Sardinia.

So rather the average of 30-80 MC.202 may be applicable for January or February of 1942, but their numbers steadily built up in 1942 and by mid year (when the Americans first started trickling in) I think it's actually more like 100 - 150, peaking around 200 before El Alamein. And while 150 aircraft may not sound like much, the Germans also had about 80-100 state of the art Bf 109s manned by elite JG 27, 51, 53, and 77 (77 replacing 27 after they were overwhelmed) later joined by Fw 190s, so you are talking about 250-300 top level Axis fighters facing about 300-350 Allied fighters, most of which were P-40s and Hurricanes. The Hurricanes almost totally relegated to fighter bomber duties.

As I already pointed out, the 325th FG claimed 95 Bf 109 and 26 MC 202 'confirmed' destroyed while flying P-40s, as you can see here, their only other Italian fighter was a single MC 200 damaged. That is 99.9% front-line aircraft. From Shores we know that about 10 of their victories in 1943 were actually MC 205. None were MC 200. I've posted those too somewhere.



So the TL : DR is that the trope that the P-40 did well in North Africa only because they faced sub-par opposition is just that, a legend and not based on fact.

Ivan1GFP said:

Hello Schweik,

First of all, this isn't MY theory. It was something I lifted from an Italian book about the Macchi C.202.
You REALLY should read what you posted. Your data is actually in pretty good agreement.

My (actually from the book) comment was that in NORTH AFRICA, the monthly average was about 30-70 Folgore for 1942. Your November 1942 statistic fits that just fine because of the units you listed only 66 aircraft by my count (really YOUR count) were actually in North Africa at the time.

As for June, 1943, I have some numbers for that also and they are actually a bit higher than yours though I don't remember ever putting those into the discussion.
As I said before, the main overlap from different sources that I was reading was 1942 so that is all I was trying to list.

- Ivan.

Click to expand...

Let me remind you of the twists and turns of this conversation:
I commented off hand as part of a discussion about the P39 that P-40s had a good record in the MTO, PTO etc.
You remarked (incorrectly) that those were against inferior opposition.
I pointed out that the Japanese fighters were hardly inferior, neither were the Germans on the Russian front, and neither were the German or Italian in the MTO
You claimed (incorrectly) that P-40s were mostly facing inferior Italian planes in the MTO
I pointed out the Luftwaffe was there in strength with their most modern fighters and the main Italian fighter, the MC.202 was equivalent to the Bf 109
You made claims of inferior performance (debunked) guns (debunked) and finally insisted there were only 30 MC 202 at any one time in the Theater
I pointed out by the second through fourth quarter of 1942 there were usually at least 150 MC 202 + 100 Bf 109, peaking at 200 - which compares pretty well to Allied front-line fighter strength
And now you are claiming that it's only 66 because only the ones based in North Africa counted.

This is actually immaterial to the original claim that P-40s faced marginal opposition since 80% of the fighters based in Theater and 99% of the fighters they claimed as victories were Bf 109 or MC 202. However there is a further fallacy in that MC 202s operating out of Pantelleria and Lampedusa, and also Sicily and Sardinia, fought US and DAF fighters in North Africa routinely in 1942 and 1943 - and more and more from those bases as Operation Husky approached, this is why they were taken out .

I found an even more detailed breakdown of Italian airpower.

Regia Aeronautica in WWII Units, Bases, and Assigned Aircraft 1940-1943

Source is listed as: Dunning, C., Combat Units of the Regia Aeronatuica, Italian Air Force, 1940-1943, 1988, England, Air Research Publications Copyright GFN 1993

Fighter units conversion dates to modern types are as follows (it also shows where they were stationed each month):

These units switched to the MC.202 in 1941
6 Gruppo CT Switch from MC.200 to MC.202 in 06/21/41. Switch to MC 205 in 03/43
9 Gruppo switch from MC 200 to MC 202 in 07/41
10 Gruppo switch from MC 200 to MC 202 on 12/41. Switch to MC 205V starting on 05/54 completed by 07/43
17 Gruppo switch from MC.200 to MC.202 on 06/41
20 Gruppo switch from G.50 to MC. 202 on 12/41

These air wings switched to MC.202 or Re.2001 in 1942
2 Gruppo - Switch from G.50 to Re 2001 03/42
7 Gruppo switch from MC.200 to MC.202 in 09/42
22 Gruppo switched from MC 200 to Re.2001 on 7/42
23 Gruppo switched from Cr 42 & MC 200 to Mc 202 on 07/42
13 Gruppo switch from MC 200 to MC.202 on 11/42

So five air groups flying MC.202 by the end of 1941, and ten air groups flying MC.202 or Re.2001 by the end of 1942.

The following units switched in 1943
16 Gruppo Assalto switch from MC 200 to MC 202 on 2/43
18 Gruppo CT switch from MC 200 to MC.202 on 4/43
24 Gruppo CT switched from G.50 to Mc 202 and MC 205 on 05/43

The following units kept older types
8 Gruppo still on MC 200 by 09/43
12 Gruppo Still on MC 200
21 Gruppo CT still on MC 200

Stig1207 said:

No, I'd say they probably were; from Pantelleria specifically though it seems more likely that they would be engaging RAF fighters from Malta, which is about 240 km away, compared to say Tobruk which is 1200 km away.





I haven't alleged that either of them were sub-par; I just pointed out that your list of Mc. 202 claims and losses doesn't tell us how many Macchi's were on hand in North Africa. or in the Med as a whole for that matter.

However, with 182 claims for 18 losses, I guess the Italians were pretty happy with them

Click to expand...

As I already pointed out to Ivan, many of the Italian claims were shared claims between multiple pilots, as you can see yourself easily by looking through your copy of MAW II or III. For example on August 5, 1942 (page 298 in MAW II) no less than 9 MC.202 pilots made claims for 4 x P-40s plus one probable. A German pilot from 4./JG 27 also made 1 claim.

Four of the MC.202 pilots shared a claim for one of those kills.

Actual losses were two Hurricane IICs and one P-40 shot down, plus one Hurricane damaged "Cat 1"

Allied pilots also claimed a Bf 109 plus three damaged and a probable, and an MC.202 damaged. But there were no Axis losses.

So you have 9 MC.202 pilots making claims, for an actual loss of 3 fighters.

Ivan1GFP said:

Hello Stig1207,

That is actually pretty consistent with the initial operations of the Macchi C.202 in late 1941.
Now keep in mind for distances that for the most of the early versions of the Macchi Folgore were not equipped with racks for carrying drop tanks and internal fuel for these aircraft is 430 liters or 113 Gallons.

- Ivan.

Click to expand...

If you look at this link which I helpfully provided earlier (you may want to download it or copy / paste it into word because they will only let you open that page a few times, after which it goes behind a paywall)

Regia Aeronautica in WWII Units, Bases, and Assigned Aircraft 1940-1943

it shows how the various Italian fighter squadrons were moved around constantly from base to base in the MTO, from the Islands to the North African continent and back again. They also went to Italy, usually when transitioning to a new type.

So for example of the incidents I mentioned previously in August, I note the following Italian Gruppo, next to which I have noted where they were stationed:

9° - 1942 // Sicily, Italy, Cirenaica (North Africa), Egypt, Cirenaica, Tripolitan // 1943 // Italy , Sicily , Italy
10° - 1942 // Sicily, Italy, Cirenaica, Egypt, Cirenaica, Tripolitan, Italy // 1943 // (begin conversion to MC.205) Italy, Sicily, Italy
23° - 1942 // Italy (for transition to MC.202 completed on 7/42*), Sicily, Pantelleria, Tripolitan, Egypt, Cirenaica, Tripolitan // 1943 // Tripolitan, Tunisia, Sicily, Italy

(I'm sure there were others but that is enough to make the point)

The above doesn't count moves from bases within the same zone, which were frequent. So you can see they moved routinely and quite restlessly from the Islands to Libya, Tunisia, or Egypt and back again. So to suggest that if at any one moment, a unit was in Sicily or Pantelleria, that it was not involved in the fighting is completely absurd. Even if you think they didn't fly sorties from the Island bases they were soon transferred to another base and then another, looks like they moved about every two or three weeks in 1942.

*23° was a CR 42 unit in 1941

Hello Schweik,

Your method of leaving out contradicting statements in quotes of YOUR OWN POSTS is quite unethical.
Let me remind folks of your post earlier:

Schweik said:

So that is:
Med Islands: 91 MC. 202, 21 Re 2001, 2 MC.200, 26 G.50bis, and 33 CR.42, for a total of 112 modern, 28 second string, and 33 biplanes.
North Africa: ~ 55 MC.202, ~ 10 MC.200, 39 CR.42

Click to expand...

(Emphasis is mine.)

What is the point of playing games like this? This is just plain dishonest.

- Ivan.

Well that's a bit rude Ivan, not to mention excessive. Aren't you the same person who recently suggested that calling people names is immature? Or was that someone else?

I am not going to make any sweeping judgements of your character based on our forum banter, I don't know you so it would be ill considered to make assumptions. In other discussions you seemed pretty reasonable if a little opinionated (not rare in forums like this). But I have noticed a few times recently where it seems like you miss key parts of passages you read, perhaps in haste, like that Fw 190 test or my posts in this discussion.

To wit, I don't think it is even remotely relevant which of the 146 MC.202 mentioned above were stationed in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Pantelleria or Sicily on a given day. As I just pointed out (and as you can easily verify for yourself on that Globalsecurity.org page I helpfully linked) it is clear they were moving every few weeks and the unit in Sicily today was quite likely in Egypt Or Libya the next week and vice versa. On top of that, they routinely flew missions from the islands and engaged with Allied fighters (including specifically DAF and USAAF Kittyhawks). So it's a completely spurious argument to claim that only aircraft in the African continent fought P-40s in the MTO. It's just patently false and easily disprovable. Nor is the notion that the Italian fighter contingent consisted only of those stationed on the African mainland on a given day.

You had a theory, I pointed out facts incompatible with that theory. Now you are manufacturing fake controversies and getting self righteous about it. This seems immature.

But if I offended you by calling your posts boring, I apologize if was only out of exhasperation. And the Deja-Vu type sense of repeating the same points over and over only to be ignored regardless of the evidence demanded and provided.