Bf-109 vs P-40

[michael rauls]

If I may propose a little common ground here. I think regardless of the exact percentages of types or which axis units we include or exclude it seems evident that there was PLENTY of first rate oposition for the P40s and the majority of there victories were against first line types.

 

[Stig1207]

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.

Agreed, but in relation to your post "Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs the majority of claims and losses are by 9 and 10 Gruppi; there are Mc. 202 units moving in and out of Libya, but they are not featured as prominently in the fighting as the above Gruppi.

MAW II (Feb '42-Mar '43) references Pantelleria all of 3 times (according to the book's index) and each time in chapters headed *Above the waves...'. Ivan's figures for 30-70 Mc. 202's on hand at any one time in North Africa are for 1942; operations in the spring/ summer 1943 involving the island are not relevant.

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.

You have mentioned a number of times that this trope had arisen due to erroneous data, Lw fanbois in the 60's and 70's, etc., and that now the true facts are coming to light with new research and books like the MAW series.

In the same post as linked above, from MAW II for August 19, you posted the Bf 109 units and strength, 112 machines in total, with 97 serviceable, a c. 85% serviceability rate This passage in the book precedes the numbers you cited.

'Despite the increases in WDAF strength recently, the Luftwaffe fighter forces were also now at their peak to date.'

In my reply "Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs I pointed out that you left out the 46 Bf 110's and 7 Do 17's that Shores includes among the fighter forces and that it was 97 aircraft of these total 165 that were listed as serviceable.

So MAW II is one of the sources that refutes the 'trope' yet still you infer that the number of serviceable Bf 109's was higher, and thus give the impression that the Axis fighter force was more formidable, numerically than it was. Why twist the facts?

.

 

[Schweik]

I'm not 'twisting' anything. I mentioned LW fighter strength as an aside to the debate about R.A. fighter strength. I didn't include the Me 110 and Do 17 but I believe I had mentioned the Me 110s a few times already. Sometimes if you don't transcribe every single pixel on a page you get pounced on like in a legal cross examination.

To your point, for August 19 LW may have been at a peak on paper (not counting servicability), but I would argue that 97 fighters was by no means the peak, per MAW, and that Luftwaffe fighter strength continued to increase in 1942, with the addition of JG 77 which came in to replace the now worn out JG 27, and the addition of elements from JG 2 (Fw 190), JG 51 and JG 53. I believe the next peak was right before El Alamein in October, for which Shores (I think?) gives figures, and then again shortly after Torch.

More broadly, both Allied and Axis fighter strength steadily built up in the MTO both in terms of quality and quality leading up to the first capitulation of Italy and then finally peaking for the last time during Anzio in 1944. It went up and down as each side built up strength before major battles and then lost aircraft in operations (and due to maintenance). I'd be guessing but I'd say the absolute peak of aircraft was some time in the second quarter of 1943.

If you want to debate the numbers of Axis and Allied strength through 1941-1943 or whatever, feel free to post them.

To your point, are you saying that I'm wrong that publications like that of Shores and the others I mentioned have changed the impression we had of events first laid out in the 1960s?

 

[Stig1207]

'Despite the increases in WDAF strength recently, the Luftwaffe fighter forces were also now at their peak to date.'

You misrepresented what Shores has written; that there were 112 Bf 109's. 46 Bf 110's and 7 Do 17's off which 97 of were serviceable. It is pretty straight forward, yet you continue beating round the bush rather than acknowledge it.

You have pointed to MAW as one of the sources bringing forth new information that casts a new light on these events, but then post something from it without faithfully reproducing what is written.

 

[Schweik]

As for Italian fighter Strength Looking at the data from globalsecurity.org / "Combat Units of the Regia Aeronatuica, Italian Air Force, 1940-1943"

I see the following Italian Gruppi using MC.202 based in North Africa during 1942:
6° Gruppo (3 squadriglie)
With MC.202 in Tripoli from 1/42, Cirenacia 2/42-3/42, then to Italy, and back to Pantelleria in 12/42, then back into Tunisia from Jan - March of 43.
9° Gruppo (3 squadriglie)
With MC.202 North Africa with MC 202 from 11/25/41 to 12/41, then back in Cirenaica and Egypt from 4/42 - 12/42, then Italy
10° Gruppo (3 squad)
With MC.202 North Africa from 05/42 - 11/42, then Italy and Sicily (Converting to MC 205V starting May 43)
17° Gruppo (3 squad)
With MC.202 from 06/41, in Africa (Cirenaica) from 11/41 - 6/42, then bouncing around from Sardinia, Pantelleria, Italy and Sicily from 11/42 - 7/43
23° Gruppo (3 squad)
Cr-42 until 7/42, MC 202 Pantelleria 7/42, then Tripoli, Egypt, Tunisia and Cirenaica with MC.202 from 7/42-3/43

The following were only on the Islands or Italy in 42 and 43
20° Gruppo (3 squad)
with MC.202 5/42 in Sicily, converting to G.55 in 3/43, Sicily 5/43, Sardinia 8/43
22° Gruppo (3 squad)
MC 200 in Russia until 10/41, Re 2001 in Sardinia, Sicily 7/42 - 743 (some use of D.520 and Re2005)

The following were either on the Islands in 42 or equipped with MC.200 but were engaged in North Africa with MC.202 from early 43
7° Gruppo (3 Squadrigilie)
(was with MC 200 until converting to MC.202 in 9/42) - Tunisia from March 43 - May 43
13° Gruppo (3 squad)
MC.200 in Africa from 2/42 until 11/42, then MC.202 in Tunisia in 1/43, then back to Italy, then Tunisia again in 02/43, then back to Italy for home defense (partly with D.520)
16° Gruppo Assalto (2 squad)
MC.200 until 08//42, then MC.202 Tunisia 2/43 - 5/43, then Sicily

The following Gruppo remained used MC.200 or G.50 at least partly in 1942 and 43
8° Gruppo CT (3 squad)
With MC.200 fighting in North Africa for most of 1941 ad 42, then returning to Italy in Dec 42
18° Gruppo (3 squad)
operated in North Africa with a mix of MC.200 and MC.202 from 10/42 - 3/43
24° Gruppo CT (2 squad)
G.50 and Cr.42 In Italy and Islands through 8/42, MC202, 205 and D.520 in Italy from 05/43

21 Gruppo (Stationed in Russia)
MC 200, MC 200 and 202 from 7/42 - 5/43, back to Italy in 5/43 with just MC.200


So it looks like ~6 squadrons of MC.202 were active in North Africa in the 1st half of 42, then 9, 10, and 23 Gruppo (9 squadrons) were active in North Africa in the second half of 1942, plus three more Gruppo (9 squadrons) with MC 202 in the Islands in the Med by the fall of 42. So a peak strength of about 18 squadrons, or 216 fighters on paper, though no doubt actual strength was probably closer to ~150.

7, 16 and 23 Gruppo, (9 squadrons) were in North Africa in the first half of 43 (plus briefly 13 Gruppo), with several others in the Med islands where the fighting began to focus by the 2nd quarter of 43.

This was supported by 1 Gruppo with MC.200 in North Africa (3 squadrons) most of 1942, another (3 squadrons) with a mix of 202 and 200 in late 42 and early 43, and one (2 squadrons) with G.50 and CR.42 in the Islands.

So in the first half of 1942 6 squadrons of MC.202, second half of 1942 it looks like 9 squadrons plus 3 more on the Islands. So

 

[Schweik]

You misrepresented what Shores has written; that there were 112 Bf 109's. 46 Bf 110's and 7 Do 17's off which 97 of were serviceable. It is pretty straight forward, yet you continue beating round the bush rather than acknowledge it.

You have pointed to MAW as one of the sources bringing forth new information that casts a new light on these events, but then post something from it without faithfully reproducing what is written.

I didn't misrepresent anything - I had already previously mentioned the same exact listing with the Me 110s several times, for example in this post (which I linked twice in the last 10 posts) the half dozen Do 17 (I think stationed in Crete, right?) didn't seem relevant to me because they were night fighters- we were talking about front line / day fighters. There was at that time no debate about German fighter strength, had there been I would have been more meticulous. You are making lawyerly nit-picks so typical of forum debates, but of zero relevance.

 

[Schweik]

Of relevance to the actual debate, which was Ivans assertion that "P-40s faced sub-par opposition in the MTO", Stig1207, do you care to estimate how many Me 110 and Do 17 were claimed by any P-40 units in 1942 and 1943? I'll bet a reasonably significant amount of money if you like that it's less than 5% of their claims... I seriously doubt they shot down any Do 17 night fighters.

If you can't show any significant numbers I suggest that those aircraft are not relevant to the discussion. Me 110s were still being used as front line fighters in 1941 and maybe for a few weeks in early 1942, but after that they were on special duties away from the DAF fighters (or escorted by single engined types).

 

[michael rauls]

You misrepresented what Shores has written; that there were 112 Bf 109's. 46 Bf 110's and 7 Do 17's off which 97 of were serviceable. It is pretty straight forward, yet you continue beating round the bush rather than acknowledge it.

You have pointed to MAW as one of the sources bringing forth new information that casts a new light on these events, but then post something from it without faithfully reproducing what is written.

I don't think he " misrepresented" it in that he was listing the fighter oposition the p40s would likely be facing. If they were indeed used almost entirely for night oporation by that time as he stated then there is no misrepresentation. Perhaps he was speaking of one thing, the quality of the oposition( which was kinda the subject) and you were speaking of total axis fighter strength in the area. Perhaps that is the root of the misunderstanding?
And at least to me I don't see how the 7 Do17s are relevant in either context.

 

[Stig1207]

Of relevance to the actual debate, which was Ivans assertion that "P-40s faced sub-par opposition in the MTO", Stig1207, do you care to estimate how many Me 110 and Do 17 were claimed by any P-40 units in 1942 and 1943? I'll bet a reasonably significant amount of money if you like that it's less than 5% of their claims... I seriously doubt they shot down any Do 17 night fighters.

If you can't show any significant numbers I suggest that those aircraft are not relevant to the discussion. Me 110s were still being used as front line fighters in 1941 and maybe for a few weeks in early 1942, but after that they were on special duties away from the DAF fighters (or escorted by single engined types).

You do nothing for your credibility, Schweik.

 

[Stig1207]

I don't think he " misrepresented" it in that he was listing the fighter oposition the p40s would likely be facing. If they were indeed used almost entirely for night oporation by that time as he stated then there is no misrepresentation. Perhaps he was speaking of one thing, the quality of the oposition( which was kinda the subject) and you were speaking of total axis fighter strength in the area. Perhaps that is the root of the misunderstanding?
And at least to me I don't see how the 7 Do17s are relevant in either context.

He definitely misrepresented, blatantly; but instead of me explaining once again, you ask Schweik this:

'How many Bf 109's were serviceable on August 19, 1942 in North Africa according to MAW II'.

 

[Schweik]

You do nothing for your credibility, Schweik.

Repeating a false assertion over and over doesn't make your point and doesn't do much for yours.

 

[Schweik]

He definitely misrepresented, blatantly; but instead of me explaining once again, you ask Schweik this:

'How many Bf 109's were serviceable on August 19, 1942 in North Africa according to MAW II'.

Not even close. Zeroing in on a detail in a discussion and pretending great outrage (or contempt) because of an omission of 7 Do 17 from a list of fighters doesn't make it actually relevant or a legitimate point, let alone provide proof the the person you are trying to debate "misrepresented" anything, which I certainly did not do.

Ivan was claiming the following:

1. "P-40s faced sub-par opposition in the MTO"
2. "MC.202s were sub par because guns"
3. "Besides, only 30% of the fighter sorties flown in North Africa in 1942 were by M.C.202, therefore the rest were probably obsolete types."

It was against this last assertion that I was providing data. I was showing that the vast majority of fighter units, and fighter sorties, by the Regia Aeronautica in the Med during the times when P-40s were in use by the Allies were by the MC.202 and more modern types.

I added the list of German fighters as an aside because it was on the page when I was going through sorties for August 1942 in MAW II.

MAW II doesn't actually tell us how many Bf 109s were serviceable on August 19, it just tells the total number of aircraft, as you know. However I don't think that number would be impossible to find. It's quite clear that the vast majority of German fighters in the MTO were Bf 109s.

 

[Schweik]

I should probably add, StiG1207 omitted that the Me 110 and Do 17 mentioned in the TO&E for Aug 19, 1942 were stationed in Crete. I.e. not North Africa

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Folks - if the immature bickering doesn't stop I'm going to shut this thread down and start sending folks into cyberspace!!!! It's an interesting thread and I really don't want to make it disappear but stop with the BS!!! My last warning!!!!

 

[Schweik]

I've been posting data, in attempt to increase 'signal to noise' ratio in the thread (and in others). Even if you disagree with the theory of the person posting the data, (and I don't pretend to have anything more than theories), the data is useful in understanding the subject. I've taken time to link and transcribe a lot of hard to find data.

But then I get attacks and personal insults from those who don't like what the data shows, which is a Catch 22. If I don't respond it seems like I'm acknowledging the insult, if I do respond it triggers a mod warning. Thus you aren't the only one who is frustrated. I'm not accustomed to being insulted.

 

[Schweik]

So these charts are from the Osprey book "Aircraft of the Aces 2" - "Bf 109 Aces of North Africa and the Mediterranean", pages 81-82


He lists Luftwaffe Bf 109 fighter strength* at various key points in the MTO battles, showing both total strength and serviceable.

1941 (various dates) starts at 14/11 and ends at 154/98
1942 Aug 20- shows 194 on strength and 125 serviceable
1943 Oct - Tunisia- shows 235 on strength and 137 serviceable (excluding Eastern Med and the Balkans)
1943 Oct - Sicily- shows 324 on strength and 182 serviceable
1944 March - Anzio - shows 93 Serviceable
1944 May - shows 54 / 37

Again, this is only Luftwaffe Bf 109 strength, it does not show Bf 110, Do 17, or Fw 190 aircraft. So the strength fluctuates a lot, and peaks in late 1943, but remains high from late 1941 through October of 1943, but appears to plummet by Spring of 1944.

On the second page he breaks down Bf 109 strength by area

in Aug 1942 in North Africa to 112 / 65 and Sicily to 71 / 54, plus 11/6 on Crete
in Oct 1943 in Tunisia to 196 / 114 plus 39/23 on Crete

So you can still make the claim that close to half of these fighters are in Sicily in August and therefore don't count (I would not agree with this but that is another debate), though some of those moved to North Africa during or right after El Alamein and then Torch.

It's worth pointing out, in addition to the above Bf 109 units, several Fw 190 units were also fighting in North Africa and the Med from 1942. According to this site the following units were deployed to North Africa starting on 16 November 1942: III./Z.G. 2, III./S.K.G. 10, II./J.G. 2, the Stab and II./Sch.G. 2,

That site lists 6 Fw 190 pilots with 88 victories between them from II./J.G.2 alone (70 from the top two experten)


Here is another interesting table from "Strategy for defeat, the Luftwaffe 1933-1945" page 149, shows that Luftwaffe fighter losses by Theater. The MTO had the highest losses through May of 1943, reaching a peak in early April at 247 (overall aircraft losses are roughly double the fighter losses). Losses in the Western or Channel front did not catch up until May of 1943, then peaking in July. MTO losses remained higher than Russian Front losses for most of the year.

I think that shows pretty clearly that the MTO was a major comittment and source of losses for the Luftwaffe as well as the Regia Aeronautica, and that the Luftwaffe was committing a substantial amount of it's best fighters to the area.

I hope this helps shed light on the discussion.

* does not include Fw 190 units - JG-2 or Regia Aeronautica Bf 109 units

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I've been posting data, in attempt to increase 'signal to noise' ratio in the thread (and in others). Even if you disagree with the theory of the person posting the data, (and I don't pretend to have anything more than theories), the data is useful in understanding the subject. I've taken time to link and transcribe a lot of hard to find data.

But then I get attacks and personal insults from those who don't like what the data shows, which is a Catch 22. If I don't respond it seems like I'm acknowledging the insult, if I do respond it triggers a mod warning. Thus you aren't the only one who is frustrated. I'm not accustomed to being insulted.

The warning is directed to EVERYONE.

 

[Stig1207]

MAW II doesn't actually tell us how many Bf 109s were serviceable on August 19, it just tells the total number of aircraft, as you know. However I don't think that number would be impossible to find. It's quite clear that the vast majority of German fighters in the MTO were Bf 109s.

That's right, it doesn't tell us; but this is what you posted:

August 19
(at this time Shores lists German fighter strength as follows:Top
Stab/JG 27 - 2 x Bf 109F
I./JG 27- 23 x BF 109F
II./JG 27- 24 x Bf 109F
III./JG 27 - 24 x Bf 109F
JaboStaffel/JG 27 - 12 x Bf 109E
III./JG 534 - 24 x BF 109E and F
Jagdkommando /JG 27 3 x Bf 109F

Listing 97 aircraft servicable)

I responded, adding in the information you left out, but which is what MAW II actually tells us:

August 19
(at this time Shores lists German fighter strength as follows:
Stab/JG 27 - 2 x Bf 109F
I./JG 27- 23 x BF 109F
II./JG 27- 24 x Bf 109F
III./JG 27 - 24 x Bf 109F
JaboStaffel/JG 27 - 12 x Bf 109E
III./JG 534 - 24 x BF 109E and F
10./ ZG26 7 Do 17Z
Jagdkommando /JG 27 3 x Bf 109F
III./ ZG26 46Bf 110C

165 in total
Listing 97 aircraft of these aircraft servicable)

MAW II tells us that there were altogether 97 serviceable Bf 109's, Bf 110C, and Do17Z.

Instead of acknowledging that you had left some information out, and thus giving an incorrect picture of Luftwaffe strength, you replied:

[QUOTE
I didn't miss anything, I left out the twin engine birds because they were only flying night or maritime missions, so far as I am aware. Do you know any different?


][/QUOTE]

I helped you out again:

The 97 serviceable aircraft is of the total of 165 Bf 109's, 110's and Do 17's.

It should by now be abundantly clear, that the issue has nothing to do what roles Bf 110's and Do 17's had or where they are based. You could still at this point acknowledged that you hadn't transcribed the text from MAW II correctly. You chose instead to continue to confuse the issue:

I believe he is implying that most of the air strength of the Luftwaffe was Do 17 and Me 110 night fighters...

Repeating a false assertion over and over doesn't make your point and doesn't do much for yours.

There is nothing false about my assertion, it's correctly reproduced from MAW II.

 

[Schweik]

To the MOD - I'm responding politely to the issues raised directly at me.

I posted what I thought was relevant to the discussion - which at that time was about MC.202s. I thought the number of Bf 109s was also relevant.

After transcribing the Luftwaffe TO&E, once you brought it up I certainly did acknowledge that I left that information out of that post on the subject, and I explained why:

1. I do not think that the number of Me 110s was relevant,
2. I had already mentioned those same 110s a couple of times previously and
3. I don't think Me 110s or Do 17s were flying day-time fighter missions in August 1942.
4. I wasn't making any kind of point about Luftwaffe serviceability rates at that time, we were talking about the MC.202 and the Regia Aeronautica.

Yes this was intentional, no I was not hiding anything, I am well aware that many other people have that same book which is why I give page references and / or dates when I quote data from it so you can look it up for yourselves. In some cases I have also taken photos and uploaded them so people who don't have it can see I'm not making anything up.
Very similarly, when I partially transcribed excerpts about the Italian fighter strength in the MTO, I did not transcribe anything about the SM.79 or SM.82 or Ca 314 strength. I did include CR.42 numbers to be thorough, eventually I left those off too because they were relegated to flying bomber missions and were phased out at some point in 1942.

Leaving out the Me 110 contingent from that list was quite intentional. Very much like the Osprey book which I transcribed in post 796 above - the Osprey author only showed the Bf 109 strength because that is what that book is about. Whatever I'm going to transcribe from a book in the midst of a conversation is going to be relevant to that conversation - I'm not going to transcribe the whole book.

You may think there is something sinister in leaving out what I believe were night fighters / maritime patrol aircraft - the Me 110 and Do 17 units stationed on Crete, in the discussion about fighters faced by P-40s in North Africa and the MTO, but I don't agree. Just because you are certain that you are correct doesn't mean that I see it the same way.

We all have the right to have and share our own opinions.
We do not have the right to force anyone else to agree with our opinions.
Sometimes people look at the same data and draw radically different conclusions.

For example that British Fw 190 test that Ivan linked. We each drew quite different conclusions from the same report.
I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on it and we both just have to live with that. Others can draw their own conclusions.
I believe the same applies here.

 

[Schweik]

There is some room for interpretation in the role of second-string fighters in any given Theater- in the Med by Aug 1942, most of the Hurricane and early mark Kittyhawk units were doing exclusively fighter bomber missions, the P39s were doing coastal patrol, and (in 1943) the A-36, though technically they were P-51 fighters, flew almost exclusively dive bomber missions and scored very few air to air claims. Allied fighter strength really consisted of Spitfires, P-38s, and late model P-40s. Later by mid 1943 P-47s began arriving as well.

The Beaufighter was kind of in a gray area, they were flying as both fighters and fighter-bombers, but as fighters they were mostly fighting far out to see and rarely encountered single-engined day fighters. They did sometimes though.

On the Axis side, the CR.42, the older 109Es, about half of the Fw 190s were flying almost exclusively bomber missions. The Me 110s and Ju 88Cs were flying coastal patrol / escort, night fighter and fighter bomber missions. I think the 7 Do 17s mentioned were night fighters though I really don't know I haven't read about that unit.

At certain points you also had naval assets, Fulmars, Martlets and Sea Hurricanes, and the Axis had a little flare up by the Vichy French who wrecked a lot of the aircraft of the CV Ranger and some CVEs around the time of Torch.