Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Schweik]

Bf 109E is/was vastly better than any Yak fighter since it was available for two years when Yak fighters were not available - 1939 to 1940.

By that logic the Gloster Gladiator is better than both... when the Yak 1 and Yak 7 appeared on the battlefields in Russia bf 109E were still in use, albeit mostly relegated to Jabo formations and so on. Similarly when the Tomahawk appeared in North Africa, 109E were still around, 109F were brojught in to replace them but that was not an instant process. As far as performance goes, I think perhaps you are ignoring the later Yak 1B, Yak 7B etc.

Any model of P-40 and any Yak were competitive if the Bf 109s were at low-ish altitudes, no such luck above 3-4 km.

Yes - exactly- and what percentage of combats on the Russian Front, the only place where the Yak lived, took place above 3-4km?

Spitfire IX vs. Bf 109E? That is a joke. At low and medium altitudes Spitfire IX have had performance parity vs. German opposition, it edged them out above 25000 ft, bar the 109s with AS engine and DB 605D (in the 109G-10s and K-4s mostly).

When the Spit IX was deployed in North Africa in 1942 there were still Bf 109E equipping squadrons, with plenty of 109F and a good number of G-2 and G-4, and some G-6 in 1943. The Spit IX squadrons wrought havoc against them all.

The 109F-4 was with clear edge vs any Mk.V,

This is not borne out in the combat record over North Africa or Malta.

Per Shores Mediterranean Air War series, the Spit Vc was out-fighting 109F and G2, and the Spit IX was dominating them.

 

[tomo pauk]

By that logic the Gloster Gladiator is better than both... when the Yak 1 and Yak 7 appeared on the battlefields in Russia bf 109E were still in use, albeit mostly relegated to Jabo formations and so on. Similarly when the Tomahawk appeared in North Africa, 109E were still around, 109F were brojught in to replace them but that was not an instant process. As far as performance goes, I think perhaps you are ignoring the later Yak 1B, Yak 7B etc.

There was no real new advantage being brought by Yak-1B or -7B, apart from extra 100 HP under 3 km, and, despite that, a performance loss due to poor fit & finish. The Bf 109Fs were predominant fighter models in 1941, especially once Op Barbarossa kicked in, so I'll still pit those against Yaks in comparison, not the 109Es that were out of production by 10 months by mid-1941.

Yes - exactly- and what percentage of combats on the Russian Front, the only place where the Yak lived, took place above 3-4km?

That Yaks were underperforming above 4 km was not a feature, but a bug. Bf 109s were able to do whatever the Yaks did, plus perform at high altitudes, plus with greater range.

When the Spit IX was deployed in North Africa in 1942 there were still Bf 109E equipping squadrons, with plenty of 109F and a good number of G-2 and G-4, and some G-6 in 1943. The Spit IX squadrons wrought havoc against them all.

Against the 109Es and G-6s - certainly. There is a small thing of having a numerical superiority, too.

This is not borne out in the combat record over North Africa or Malta.

Per Shores Mediterranean Air War series, the Spit Vc was out-fighting 109F and G2, and the Spit IX was dominating them.

Seems like that combat record over Soviet Union does not matter.
It also seems like the Spit VC was barely holding it's own vs. Zeros, yet was outfighting the 109Fs and G2s, all while RAF brass made a descision not to press on with VC in 1943, but to concentrate on VB?

 

[Schweik]

There was no real new advantage being brought by Yak-1B or -7B, apart from extra 100 HP under 3 km, and, despite that, a performance loss due to poor fit & finish.

Yak 1

Yak 1B

Yak1B had the bubble canopy (therefore better pilot situational awareness), a new gunsight, and a heavy machine gun, better / more careful finish and various other non-negligable improvements. And 100 hp does make a difference! This is why when the Yak 1B came out (late 1942) it coincided with the 'tipping point' of German air supremacy, which began to slip noticeably after Stalingrad. As I'm sure you are well aware.

The Bf 109Fs were predominant fighter models in 1941, especially once Op

I never said otherwise though you seem to be implying that I was. But Bf 109E were on the battlefield as well, more of them in North Africa than Russia but in Russia too. I think we have discussed this before but here, review the TO&E - notice how many squadrons are still flying Bf 109E in 06/41. Even in Dec 41 there are still quite a few E models flying and still quite a few in March of 42.

I agree 109F had an edge over the early Yak 1 and Yak 7, though not by much - the main issue was still availability and reliability of radios and build quality especially in 1942 when they were still moving factories around. But the larger issue for the Russians more generally is that most of their fighter squadrons still had I-16s, LaGG-3 and MiGs.

That Yaks were underperforming above 4 km was not a feature, but a bug. Bf 109s were able to do whatever the Yaks did, plus perform at high altitudes, plus with greater range.

So what? The Yaks could out-turn the Bf 109s, was that a bug or a feature of the 109? 109s received gun-gondolas which degraded their performance badly against fighters but helped them shoot down lumbering Il-2s. Was that a bug or a feature?

Against the 109Es and G-6s - certainly. There is a small thing of having a numerical superiority, too.

Do these excuses work both ways? We glorify German pilots for shooting down scores of biplanes and open cockpit I-16s with no radios, but somehow when the weather is bad or the other side deploys more planes their victories are irrelevant?

its worth keeping in mind the German army was larger than the Soviet army at the start of Operation Barbarossa.

But more to the point, in the Med in the era when the Spits began arriving from June 1942, Luftwaffe strategists typically achieved local numerical superiority or parity in most air battles in 1942 or 1943, especially when facing late model Spitfires which they knew were superior to their own machines (and which they could not safely attack from above and disengage). The fact that DAF had 100 Hurricanes or early model Kittyhawks deployed somewhere else bombing and strafing Afrika Korps tanks didn't seem to bother the Luftwaffe commanders too much, they cherry picked their fights to maximize the victory tally, but that only yielded results for so long. Needless to say this contributed to friction with the ground commanders like Rommel who complained about this practice to the higher ups.

Seems like that combat record over Soviet Union does not matter.

I mentioned Med and Malta because that is where the Spit V specficlally (which is what we were discussing in that point of the argument) was most active in this period, I think. Only one group of them in Russia (didn't do well) and action over England was limited to intercepting raids and intruders.

As for the Soviet Union I do think it does matter, but it also merits a closer look. As I mentioned, the tipping point of Luftwaffe dominance began to shift after Stalingrad. This coincides with the arrival of the Yak-1B, Yak-9, and La 5 on the battlefield. The test of who was superior to whom did not come out in favor of the Aryan super -race in the long run, did it? And that wasn't simply due to Germans freezing in the Russian winter. Somebody shot down most of those 30,000 Bf 109s that were built. And all the Fw 190s too.

The greatest number of German victories in the air in 1941-1942 by far were against antiquated open cockpit I-16, I-53 biplanes - both lacking radios , flawed MiG -3, LaGG-3 (also lacking radios) obsolescent Hurricanes, and Il2 and various other bomber types.

Actual victories scored on the Russian front are still a hotly contested subject but even looking at Black Cross / Red Star Yaks, P-39s and P-40 squadrons do not seem to be taking the lions share of the losses, and these were conversely where the majority of Aces and HSU pilots were emerging on the Soviet side.

It also seems like the Spit VC was barely holding it's own vs. Zeros, yet was outfighting the 109Fs and G2s, all while RAF brass made a descision not to press on with VC in 1943, but to concentrate on VB?

The Zero is another story entirely, i think it would be interesting indeed to see how Bf 109E or Fs would have fared against them. The Japanese had five Bf 109E7s they tested them against their own fighters and elected not to produce them or buy any more. They did like the engine though of course.

Based on Shores stats, the Spit VC seems to have had a marginally better combat record (i gather largely from better ammunition storage) than the VB, and comes out ahead over the F-4, but I can't say as to why the RAF brass decided to do what they did. They made a lot of decisions which appear odd to me but I was not there! Ultimately the Spit IX was the answer to all their pressing Luftwaffe problems.

S

 

[Greyman]

... RAF brass made a descision not to press on with VC in 1943, but to concentrate on VB ...

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? I don't follow.

 

[Stig1207]

As for the Soviet Union I do think it does matter, but it also merits a closer look. As I mentioned, the tipping point of Luftwaffe dominance began to shift after Stalingrad. This coincides with the arrival of the Yak-1B, Yak-9, and La 5 on the battlefield. The test of who was superior to whom did not come out in favor of the Aryan super -race in the long run, did it? And that wasn't simply due to Germans freezing in the Russian winter. Somebody shot down most of those 30,000 Bf 109s that were built. And all the Fw 190s too.

The Soviets were still losing 3 aircraft for every plane lost by the Luftwaffe in 1944; these are operational losses too all causes. This despite overwhelming numerical superiotity.

Based on Shores stats

What stats?

 

[Vincenzo]

I've no time for check, but i near sure that Spit IX was not deployed in ME/NA in 1942. If there were some Emil in the 42 were in ground attack staffeln.
Nikademus time ago writed "My estimate suggests 144 Spitfires in trade for 82 Bf-109's for air to air based on a study of Shores's Malta book" he was taking of '42.

 

[parsifal]

The Soviets were still losing 3 aircraft for every plane lost by the Luftwaffe in 1944; these are operational losses too all causes. This despite overwhelming numerical superiotity.



What stats?

Actually I don't think that is correct. So many LW a/c were caught on the ground and destroyed by the advancing Soviets as to make this virtually an impossibility.

Another way of looking at this might be to look at some top down statistics. Soviet a/c losses are estimated to be 65000 1941 to 1945. No way to check that but it at least seems like a plausible number. of that number, more than 20000 were lost in the 1941 campaign .

Germany is estimated to have lost some 28000 a/c on the eastern front and to that we would also need to add a number for the other Axis. ive no idea what that number might be, but I think it would be substantial.

So the ratio of losses is not anywhere near 3;1 for 1942 and after. Perhaps in the air, but not as an overall total. .

 

[Stig1207]

Soviet losses were in the order of 88000, 46000 of them operational. The 20000 in 1941 were total losses, with some 10600 being operational.

Total German losses may well have been 28000, but operationally about 15000.

The operational loss ratios 1941-1944 were more than 3 to 1 every year for the Soviets compared to the Luftwaffe; losses of the smaller Axis will naturally lower the overall ratio, but probably not much.

I doubt that there are any loss figures for air to air, so what that ratio is anyone's guess.

 

[Schweik]

Soviet losses were in the order of 88000, 46000 of them operational. The 20000 in 1941 were total losses, with some 10600 being operational.

Total German losses may well have been 28000, but operationally about 15000.

The operational loss ratios 1941-1944 were more than 3 to 1 every year for the Soviets compared to the Luftwaffe; losses of the smaller Axis will naturally lower the overall ratio, but probably not much.

I doubt that there are any loss figures for air to air, so what that ratio is anyone's guess.

What are your sources for those numbers?

The main issue with these numbers is 'what constitutes shot down'? The Germans reported aircraft damage by percentage, so for example if a plane gets a bullet in the radiator and makes a forced landing, but it subsequently recovered, radiator patched, new prop put on, and it's back in the air a week or two later, the Germans report it as 10% damaged. This is not usually included as a 'loss', but from the point of view of a Russian pilot who shot the bullet into it's radiator and made it force-land, it was indeed shot down.

Since Germans were fighting defensively for the most part after 1942, many of their lost aircraft were later recovered (at least until their situation really fell apart) and even aircraft reported by the Germans themselves as 40, 50 or even 80% damaged may not be counted as 'victories' in todays estimates of win / loss ratios, which often only count the totally destroyed German fighters but sometimes count all seriously damaged or crash landed Soviet fighters.

If anyone is curious, I decided to take a deeper dive into Soviet production and losses.

Some production figures:

Il2 Sturmovik - 35,000
SB bomber = 6,500 (all produced before 1942)
Su-2 bomber = 900
Tb 3 = 800
I-153 (3400) + I-15 (1000*) = 4,400 - still active on the front line into 1942
I-16 = 8,600 still active into 1943
LaGG-3 = 6,500 still active into 1943
MiG-1 (100) + MiG-3 = (3,400) = 3,500
PO-2 / U-2 = ~10,000

Hawker Hurricane 2,800

Easy for Luftwaffe to shoot down...

...not so easy for Luftwaffe to shoot down

Of the above list, I would consider most of the 13,000 open cockpit I-16 and I-15 / 153 biplane series fighters to be obsolete. Almost all of them were shot down, some by the Japanese and no doubt quite a few lost in accidents, but probably 3/4 shot down and claimed as victories by the Germans. Some of the later model I-16s were good enough to at least give a skilled pilot a chance so I'll not count those. Still, this was a fairly big chunk of the Soviet operational losses. Say 8,000 of them. I didn't count the PO -2 / U-2 because I don't know how many they lost, I know a lot of them were used for less risky night missions but I'm sure they lost a bunch regardless.

At the start of WW2 90% of the Soviet Bomber force were SB bombers. About 2,000 SB bombers were deployed on the Western Front, and were rapidly wiped out at an astonishing rate. By 1942 all of the original bombers and a large number of replacements were lost. Say conservatively 3,000 lost in combat conting replacements. (Not counting the more sophisticated AR-2 development of the SB since it was a more effective aircraft, albeit built in very small numbers, though most of them were destroyed too.)

TB-3 bombers were also, needless to say, completely obsolete and look like they belonged in another era. Nevertheless they too were used as front line aircraft and the majority were destroyed. Say 500.

So of the German victories in 1941-1942, I would estimate 11,500 were obsolete biplanes, open-cockpit 30's era fighters with no radios, & obsolete bombers. Most of these were lost in 1942 so that is a fairly large chunk of that original 20,000.

The Il2s were not obsolete, but part of their design / operational philosophy was that they were essentially expendable. Their mission was to destroy German tanks first, and survive second. According to this article, the Soviets lost ~11,000 Il2s in the war.

The LaGG-3 and MiG -3 weren't obsolete either, but they were substandard, as were the Hurricanes. Most were shot down by 1943. That is another big chunk of planes (~12,000) of which a lot were lost in accidents (as these were either unfamilair / unstable / twitchy types) probably at least half were claimed by the Luftwaffe. Lets say 6,000.


So to get back to the point about Yak series fighters, of 46,000 operational losses (if we accept that figure as accurate), it looks to me like ~28,000 of them were obsolete 1930's era aircraft, Sturmoviks, or substandard (LaGG-3 / MiG-3 / Hurricane).

That leaves 18,000 modern aircraft, to be divided among the production / wartime delivered modern aircraft:

mainly Bombers (Soviet and Anglo-American) ...
Pe-2 ~ 8,000 (11,000 total but some were made after the war)
Tu-2 ~1,500 (2,200 total but some were made after the war)
Il-4 - 1,500
A-20 - ~2,700
B-25 - ~500
Il-10 (uber Sturmovik so to speak) ~1,000

.. Soviet fighters ...
Yak-1 / 1B -8,700
Yak-7 - 6,300
La-5 / 5 FN / 7 - ~8,000 (some built after the war)
Yak-9 - ~15,000
Yak-3 - ~3,000 (4,800 total but some were made after the war)

.. and Anglo-American fighters
P-39 - ~4,000
P-40 - ~2,400
Spitfire Mk V ~140
Spitfire Mk IX 1,200
P-63 - ~3,000

Probably half of those remaining 18,000 lost aircraft were among the 15,000 modern bombers used by the Soviets during the war. So say 9,000.

the remaining 9,000 lost aircraft would be found among the modern fighters:

15,000 early Yaks, (1941 through 1943)
8,000 La 5 series (from mid 1942),
18,000 late model Yaks, (from late 1942)
5,000 modern Anglo-American fighters used in front line / VVS units. Many of these were used up in the earlier war years (1942-1943) while the remaining 5,700 (about half the P-40s, all the Spit IXs, and most of the P-63s) were used mainly for PVO (air defense of rear areas) or in the East. I also didn't count P-47s because I don't think the Soviets used them much. Not sure if there were any other British aircraft other than Hurricanes and Spitfires... did they use any English bombers?

My conclusion is that most of the modern Soviet aircraft, those designed after 1942, had a pretty good ratio of survival. The Soviets lost probably about 28,000 obsolete aircraft and vulnerable Sturmoviks, they lost another 9,000 or so modern bombers, and based on the 46,000 figure (if true) they probably lost about 9,000 modern fighters of ~50,000 available (including PVO units). Of that 9,000 I think probably a third were Anglo-American P-39s and P-40s. Assuming most of the Yak lost were the earlier types, assume about 5,000 or 1/3 of them were lost. This compares well as a wartime survival ratio to ALL of the modern German fighters, mainly the 33,000 Bf 109s and 20,000 Fw 190s being lost, albeit many in the West. The later model Yaks and La 5 series fighters obviously had a fairly good and improving outlook.

One of the other major significant changes that happened in 1943 was that Soviet planes started to have more functional radios, which is huge. Prior to that only the Lend-lease Anglo-American planes had good radios. Once most of the Soviet fighters in particular have functional radios they can compete on much more equal terms with the Luftwaffe. By then like the RAF and USAAF they had also adopted the German Rotte / Finger Four system of two pairs of fighters, which was also a major improvement. And of course build quality issues were being rapidly resolved.

So the TL : DR is that my guess from looking at the numbers is not too many Yak fighters got shot down compared to the number of Bf 109s lost, especially later model Yak fighters. Most of the glory of the experten was won in wiping out obsolete aircraft in 1941 and 1942. The losses in more modern Soviet fighters are probably comparable to the losses of Bf 109s and Fw 190s on the Russian Front. The obsolete or / more vulnerable Me 110 (6,000 built), Ju 87 (6,500 built), Do 17 (2,000 built), Hs 123 (250 built), He 111 (6,500 built) not to mention Italian MC 200, and so on could correlate with the more obsolescent or substandard Soviet fighters destroyed in the first couple of years of the war (at which time the Germans certainly had a substantial advantage). The more modern Ju 88 (15,00 built), Ju 188 (1,200 built), Do 217 (1,900 built), Hs 129 (800 built) etc. were also of course all destroyed by the end of the conflict.

S

* 3,300 I-15 were produced but per Wikipedia only 1,000 were still in active use at the outbreak of WW2. They continued in front line use (along with I-153) until 1942

 

[Kryten]

I've no time for check, but i near sure that Spit IX was not deployed in ME/NA in 1942. If there were some Emil in the 42 were in ground attack staffeln.
Nikademus time ago writed "My estimate suggests 144 Spitfires in trade for 82 Bf-109's for air to air based on a study of Shores's Malta book" he was taking of '42.

Rather a disingenuous statistic as it is ignoring the fact the RAF were constantly intercepting bomber raids not duelling with 109's in isolation!
The 109's had only the RAF fighters to engage!

Suffice to say the arrival of the Spit V changed the air battle considerably and ultimately defeated the Luftwaffe again.

Bit silly to try and tot up fighters alone in a strategic battle like Malta!

 

[tomo pauk]

Perhaps my last participation for this thread: losses of the Soviet and German A/C, per Soviet records. Chapters of interest, in Spanish, are 4. Bajas de la aviación nazi and 5. Bajas de la aviacion soviética. LINK
Easy to comprehend even without translation.

 

[Schweik]

Perhaps my last participation for this thread: losses of the Soviet and German A/C, per Soviet records. Chapters of interest, in Spanish, are 4. Bajas de la aviación nazi and 5. Bajas de la aviacion soviética. LINK
Easy to comprehend even without translation.

It says the Soviets shot down more than 50,000 German combat aircraft which is interesting, but i don't know what their source is.

 

[Vincenzo]

Rather a disingenuous statistic as it is ignoring the fact the RAF were constantly intercepting bomber raids not duelling with 109's in isolation!
The 109's had only the RAF fighters to engage!

Suffice to say the arrival of the Spit V changed the air battle considerably and ultimately defeated the Luftwaffe again.

Bit silly to try and tot up fighters alone in a strategic battle like Malta!

That were the losses in the air to air encounter 109 vs Spit the losses of Spit versus others aircraft are not include. The battle was win for many reasons and the quality of Spit V probabily not count, the would win the battle also using only Kittyhawk, with more losses but ever win

 

[Schweik]

I've no time for check, but i near sure that Spit IX was not deployed in ME/NA in 1942. If there were some Emil in the 42 were in ground attack staffeln.
Nikademus time ago writed "My estimate suggests 144 Spitfires in trade for 82 Bf-109's for air to air based on a study of Shores's Malta book" he was taking of '42.

Maybe you should check - my information says No. 81 Sqn RAF arrived in Tunisia in November 1942 with a mix of Spit IX and VC. Moved from there to Malta also in 1942, then Italy and then back to North Africa in the next few months. Data is sketchy though and I might be wrong - if so I'm willing to learn.

Most of the Spit IX groups and for example the Polish Fighting Team arrived in January and February of 1943.

I'd really like to see this famous post of Nikademus because I suspect his numbers are off. Like I've mentioned before, it depends what you count as a 'shot down' aircraft. Does that number include forced landings? 80% damaged? 50%? Are you counting aircraft destroyed or damaged by Flak or just by enemy aircraft? What are the criteria?

And perhaps more importantly - is it the same criteria on both sides.

I'm not certain what "Shores Malta book" is precisely - I know he is a prolific author and has written numerous books on the Air War in WW2, but I have his two most recent Mediterranean Air War books (Vols II and III, & eagerly awaiting Vol IV later this year) and I can tell you it's tricky determining who shot down what since by the second half of 1942 in particular, most days include pilots of multiple aircraft types on both sides making claims.

I would be suspicious of the numbers you quoted though I don't think it was that lopsided.

I keep threatening to do my own counts with these books and at least get claims / loss lists for each side for every day but I never seem to have the time. Probably waste too much time posting here i have done that for a couple of months, for example March of 1943 and Dec of 1942, and have been going through putting notes in the margins for a more comprehensive count but not sure when I can deliver on that.

S

 

[Schweik]

(double post)

 

[Vincenzo]

I've checked for the 81st it go in theater in november 42 but get the IX only in january '43, it used both the model, Vc and IX, until 11/43 when go to VIII, but was moved in CBI theater

I've checked also for the Emil at 1/11/42 there were on strenght 39 Emil on all the Jagd unit of LW, so this include the jabo staffeln, just for clear the total of fighter was 1452

 

[Greyman]

I'm not certain what "Shores Malta book" is precisely - I know he is a prolific author and has written numerous books on the Air War in WW2, but I have his two most recent Mediterranean Air War books (Vols II and III, & eagerly awaiting Vol IV later this year) and I can tell you it's tricky determining who shot down what since by the second half of 1942 in particular, most days include pilots of multiple aircraft types on both sides making claims.

Certainly tricky. Fantastic book but things tend to be a bit slipperier than in his later works. Shores' game has certainly reached new levels in his latest books.

When you have big, confused dogfights in three languages with the results tending to end up in the sea - it makes for a few holes in the story

 

[Schweik]

View attachment 492569


Certainly tricky. Fantastic book but things tend to be a bit slipperier than in his later works. Shores' game has certainly reached new levels in his latest books.

When you have big, confused dogfights in three languages with the results tending to end up in the sea - it makes for a few holes in the story

Gotcha, understood. Yes I got the idea that his earlier stuff was less thorough - even in the current volume you can find some mistakes but so far based on other sources I have like squadron histories of several of the involved units, everything seems to check out fairly well in MAW II and III.

My information on 81 Squadron comes from this site:

No. 81 Squadron (RAF) during the Second World War

which says they got Spit IXs in May and June of 1942. There is a famous Spit IX from that squadron which was restored in Malta.

Schedule is a bit confusing as well but it appears they got into the Med in Oct 42 and into action in November.

September-October 1942: Wellingore
30 October 1942: To Gibraltar November 1942: Maison Blanche
November 1942-March 1943: Bone/ Tingley
March-May 1943: Souk-el-Khemis

Bone / Tingley is on the border between Algiers and Tunisia.

However, it may well be that they didn't get Spit IX until very early 1943. By Jan 43 though it's clear they were there and in numbers. Per Shores MAW Vol III, p. 290, a Spit IX of 81 Sqn claimed a Bf 109G 15m E of Cap Rosa (Tunisia) and a 322 Wing Spit IX claimed another Bf 109G in the same area. 81 Sqn also reported one lost that same day.

Polish Fighting Team arrived in Med in February with Spit IXs.

S

 

[Schweik]

I've checked also for the Emil at 1/11/42 there were on strenght 39 Emil on all the Jagd unit of LW, so this include the jabo staffeln, just for clear the total of fighter was 1452

They may be rare by Nov 42 but as you can see there were still plenty of Emils flying in the Luftwaffe in March - I count over 150 including 26 with JG 77 alone, and still a significant number in June of 42 as well when the Spits first arrived in Tunisia.

Single engine fighters - 28.03.42

So per the original context, it's not wrong to compare Spit Vs or Yak 1s to Bf 109E in 1942. Spit IX ok I'll give you that, it's not there until Jan 43. Still some Emils around by then but not many.

 

[Vincenzo]

My source for the 81st is Sqn Markings 81_P, in the history page i get the theater
and no squadrons get IX in may '42, the first sqadron to get the IX was the 64th in June and became operational the 28th July, the 2nd squadron was 611th get first IX the 23rd July both in Great Britain.

I've checked in same site In NA&Sicily at 1st march '42 all Jagd unit were on Friedrich, There was 1 Emil in a Zerstoerer Gruppe