michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
'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.
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?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.
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).
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.
You do nothing for your credibility, 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'.
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.
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.
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)
The 97 serviceable aircraft is of the total of 165 Bf 109's, 110's and Do 17's.
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.