Most successful Allied fighter in the MTO

[Glider]

Success is one of those things that we all get sucked into measuring by losses and claims. However it is other almost unmeasurable things that contribute to success. From the day the Spitfire arrived in the Desert airforces losses of all types fell quickly. Not because the Spit suddenly incurred huge losses on the Axis airforces, but because the Axis airforces became far more cautious about attacking, in case the Spitfires were around as cover.

In Fighters over Tunisia a number of Allied fighter pilots (incl USAAF) were asked what were the best fighters in the Med and they all put the Spit IX first, The SPit V and P38 second depending on the task long or short range and no one said the P40 or Hurricane.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

I am in a state of shock. To have seen Readie vote for anything but the Spit has left me speechless. Wonders never cease. My vote for the Spitfire. Don't know the ETO/MTO very well, but it appears that the USAAF fighter of choice (for both Ike and the guys wearing silk scarves) in the early going was not a domestic mount. That seems to say volumes.

 

[Sid327]

How about another plane?

The Beaufighter...
In the Mediterranean, the USAAF's 414th, 415th, 416th and 417th Night Fighter Squadrons received 100 Beaufighters in the summer of 1943, achieving their first victory in July 1943. Through the summer the squadrons conducted both daytime convoy escort and ground-attack operations, but primarily flew defensive interception missions at night. Although the Northrop P-61 Black Widow fighter began to arrive in December 1944, USAAF Beaufighters continued to fly night operations in Italy and France until late in the war.
Not bad for a (very) heavy fighter.
Cheers
John

I have a liking for the old Beaufighter too.

Tough and pretty dependable.
Would love to have seen one developed for more performance by fitting a couple of either Bristol Centaurus or R-2800's.

 

[Readie]

I have a liking for the old Beaufighter too.

Tough and pretty dependable.
Would love to have seen one developed for more performance by fitting a couple of either Bristol Centaurus or R-2800's.

I admire the Beau too...but, Merlin's please

'I am in a state of shock. To have seen Readie vote for anything but the Spit has left me speechless'

Mal, you know me so well hahaha...believe me I was very tempted .

 

[fastmongrel]

I have a liking for the old Beaufighter too.

Tough and pretty dependable.
Would love to have seen one developed for more performance by fitting a couple of either Bristol Centaurus or R-2800's.

A brick is still a brick no matter how many horsepower it has. Dont think the bluff old girl would have gone much faster if you had strapped a couple of rockets to the wings. The Bristol Brigand had Centaurus engines and a slimmer fuselage but similar wings and with its extra 1,000 hp it went about 25mph faster.

 

[pattle]

Although the P38 had the range to do things that the Spitfire couldn't and had two engine safety for flying over the Med my vote still goes for the Spitfire as a pure fighter in North Africa as I believe that all things being equal it would usually have beaten the P38 in a dogfight. Although it was clearly old fashioned and clearly not in the running I don't think we should forget about the humble Gloster Gladiator as it did great things in the early days against the Italians and deserves more credit as should the Fairey Fulmar, both of these planes kept our foot in the door and kept things going. I wouldn't like to chose a favourite from the Italian campaign but a certain colour film I have seen a few times of P47s flying ground attack sorties really impressed me. I think that while a lot of allied fighters may have matched the Mustang in a dogfight you always have to come back to the Mustang for its range.

 

[nuuumannn]

Would love to have seen one developed for more performance by fitting a couple of either Bristol Centaurus

They did, it was called the Brigand, and while its performance was better than the Beaufighter, it suffered other issues, which meant it never lived up to the reputation or the success in service of the Beaufighter.

 

[pattle]

No the Brigand was a development of the Buckingham and not the Beaufighter.

 

[OldSkeptic]

Depends what you mean by 'effective'. I'll take it as making the biggest tactical or strategic difference, rather than just performance (after all there were some 190s late on in Tunisia).

Noting also that the term used is 'fighter', then the one that made the biggest strategic contribution (as a pure fighter) was the Spitfire in Malta and (albeit late) in North Africa, where a couple of squadrons finally wrested air supremacy from the Luftwaffe and eliminated the 109 threat there. Then Spits (and Seafires) for Italy.

The Hurricanes and P-40s were fundamentally used as low level fighter/bombers or bomber killers in NA. When the 109s came they ran or went into defensive circles. While they got some 109s (fire enough lead around something will be hit), the balance was massively in the Luftwaffe's favour (the famous Marseille running up an insane score) where the obsolete Hurricanes and P-40s were basically slaughtered.
They did manage to keep the Luftwaffe's bombers away.

Only poor operational use (the Luftwaffe's experten culture) meant that the 109s (by far the superior fighter until the Spits arrived) didn't have a major strategic impact on the North African campaign. If they had wanted they could have crippled the DAF's bombing abilities. Fortunately Marseille and the other experten were too busy showing off shooting down obsolete fighters (and taking care of their 'throat ache') to actually waste their valuable time helping out the endlessly bombed DAK on the ground (or guard their own bombers). You know he only claimed 3 or 4 (that I can see) bombers out of his claimed 158, what a prima donna.

Later for the Tunisian campaign, I'd add the P-38, where its range and performance were invaluable for cutting the 'air bridge'.

For the invasion of Sicily and Italy, then it is Spitfires and Seafires.

 

[tomo pauk]

You know he only claimed 3 or 4 (that I can see) bombers out of his claimed 158, what a prima donna.

That was a good one

 

[Milosh]

from Wiki:

Marseille's 151 claims in North Africa included:

101 Curtiss P-40 Tomahawk/Kittyhawk fighters
30 Hawker Hurricane fighters
16 Supermarine Spitfire fighters
2 Martin A-30 Baltimore bombers
1 Bristol Blenheim bomber
1 Martin Maryland bomber.

 

[Shortround6]

You know what this means?????

The British should have scrapped all those P-40s, Hurricanes, Spitfires and Baltimore's and used NOTHING BUT Blenheims and Marylands.

If Germany's greatest ace could shoot down ONLY one of each that must mean they were the best combat planes in the theater.

You can "prove" a lot of things with combat results.

 

[pattle]

I read in Flypast recently that Marseille's claims were exaggerated, according to the article he could not have shot down 8 P40's in a single sortie as is popularly believed because eye witness accounts and RAF loss records for that day prove otherwise. Before anyone writes an angry reply defending Marseille I'm not trying to use this article to undermine his reputation because I believe his reputation as a fighter pilot was deserved.

 

[altsym]

according to the article he could not have shot down 8 P40's in a single sortie as is popularly believed because eye witness accounts and RAF loss records for that day prove otherwise.

Marseille may or may not have shot down eight P-40's, but It's a 99% probability that his bullets hit all eight P-40's. Would the RAF freely admit to loosing eight from one German pilot? The bullets left in Marseille plane says perhaps. NOT saying its fact.. Just a thought.

 

[Njaco]

After 70 years the official record is that he shot down those 8 P-40s or 1 Maryland or.....it really doesn't matter. Thats the official record.

 

[pattle]

After 70 years the official record is that he shot down those 8 P-40s or 1 Maryland or.....it really doesn't matter. Thats the official record.

It depends whose official records you believe, kills were often over claimed and you can take the Battle of Britain as a good example of this. I would go with loss records rather than claim records, every plane had to be accounted for and I don't believe that either air force would have falsified their own secret records.

 

[stona]

Marseille may or may not have shot down eight P-40's, but It's a 99% probability that his bullets hit all eight P-40's. Would the RAF freely admit to loosing eight from one German pilot? The bullets left in Marseille plane says perhaps. NOT saying its fact.. Just a thought.

1 He did not

2 It is not a 99% probability that he hit eight, in fact it is unlikely

3 RAF losses are RAF losses as reported. Who shot what down is not relevant. How many pilots knew what shot them down, let alone who?

All "experten" over claimed. The question is whether this was in good faith (as many were) or down right fraudulent (as some were and provably so, including some of Marseilles colleagues of JG 27 in North Africa). I think Marseilles is probably in the former category. You have to analyse the pattern of claiming. Large clusters when approaching landmark numbers, particularly those associated with awards, are suspicious though not always proof of fraud. If this pattern repeats itself for a given individual then alarm bells definitely should ring.

Cheers

Steve

 

[altsym]

1 He did not

2 It is not a 99% probability that he hit eight, in fact it is unlikely

Its always about proof, right? So show proof that he didn't.


Since a few experts and enemy fighter pilots doubted
the veracity of these claims, maintaining that there wasn't
even 26 aircraft in the air, here is the tally sheet from 1 September,
which was verified by the enemy:

Oblt. Sinner 0659 hrs, a Curtiss, near El Taqua.
" 0701 hrs, a Curtiss, near El Taqua.
Hptm. Rödel 07-hrs, an unknown make.
Oblt. Marseille 0826 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Imayid.
0828 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Imayid.
" 0835 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Imayid.
" 0839 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Imayid.
" 1055 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Alam Haifa.
" 1056 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Alam Haifa.
" 1058 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Alam Haifa.
1059 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Alam Haifa.
" 1101 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Alam Haifa.
1103 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Alam Haifa.
" 1105 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Alam Haifa.
Lt. Remmer 1112 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of El Alamein.
Ofw. Steinhausen 1746 hrs, a Hurricane, SE of Imayid.
Lt. Stahlschmidt 1748 hrs, a Hurricane, SE of Imayid.
Oblt. Marseille 1747 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Imayid.
" 1748 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Imayid.
1749 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Imayid.
" 1750 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Imayid.
Lt. Stahlschmidt 1750 hrs, a Hurricane, SE of Imayid.
Oblt. Marseille 1753 hrs, a Curtiss, SE of Imayid.
Lt. von Lieres 1754 hrs, a Hurricane, SE of Imayid.

 

[pattle]

I think the proof is that the aircraft he claimed to have shot down actually returned to base.

 

[altsym]

Well let's see