Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
So my assumption that forces fighting in both the West and the East were also referred to (by tankers, ground troops, the navy etc.) as the DAF incorrect? Or that Squadrons and wings etc. moved rather freely from one side to the other?
Hi Schweik,
You are correct that your assumption is incorrect. The units had different commanders, different lines of authority, and even different aircraft markings.camouflage. When the IX and XII began to merge there was some reorganization of groups - heavy bombers to one AF, medium bombers to another - until the IX was "retired." By late 1943 your could often recognize which organization an aircraft had started with just from the vestigal markings...
Cheers,
Dana
Well I happen to know of several squadrons which moved from one to the other, so far as I know the camouflage didn't change. I already mentioned one of them - the US 57th FG.
Hi Schweik,
Of course units shifted between commands; it's just a question of when they shifted - usually the shifts occurred during the creation of the MAAF. But from that point on, you could see camouflage and markings changes that reflected the air force to which the aircraft was originally assigned.
For example, the 57th's P-40s arrived with US Sand over Neutral Gray camouflage, two wing insignia, and two fuselage insignia. When assigned to the Ninth, the 57th tended to follow British practices, adding an insignia below the left wing and above the right wing and adding an RAF fin flash to either side of the tail.
Nearly all of the Twelfth's P-40s arrived with British-style Dark Earth/Middlestone/Azure Blue camouflage, two fuselage insignia, one insignia above the left wing, and an insignia below each wing. (There were some exceptions with four wing insingia.) Initial arrivals at TORCH had thin yellow surrounds to the fuselage and underwing insignia; a few painters mistakenly added to yellow surrounds to the upperwing insignia. TORCH aircraft had US flag decals on either side of the fuselage - hoping the French would welcome us with open arms. The US flags were NOT applied to Ninth AF aircraft. Nor did XII AF aircraft apply the RAF fin flashes - REALLY didn't want to upset the French
The Corps of Engineers for the Northwest African Air Forces created a special camouflage modification that wasn't applied to the Ninth Air Force - an OD pattern was generally painted over Sand-camouflaged aircraft, or a Sand pattern could be painted over OD-camouflaged aircraft. These patterns weren't used by the Ninth, but were later applied to aircraft formerly assigned to the Ninth by the MAAF.
The photo below shows 340th BG B-25s in mid-1944. The group began its combat career with the Ninth, then transferred to the Twelfth in August 1943. You can see the Ninth's fin flashes still present, with the upper left wing insignia overpainted. Additionally, three of the aircraft have had their Sand camouflage modified to the Twelfth AF's standards - the Sand camouflage wasn't really needed by aircraft over Italy..
View attachment 611409
Again, units could move between air forces in an emergency, but the practice wasn't common. A number of Eighth AF bomb groups moved to the Middle East to support the Ninth and to bomb Romanian oil fields - most of their aircraft picked up Ninth AF markings before returning to England.
Cheers,
Dana
Chris Shore's A History of the Mediterranean Air War (four - soon to be five - volumes from Grub Street starting in 2012) makes an excellent combat history of the units and organizations (of all sides) that fought in the MTO.
Cheers,
Dana
Thank you very kindly Dana,
Interestingly, the OP which got so much criticism was basically (about 95%) a direct copy from Meditertanean Air War, which I stated very clearly in the OP including indicating the page numbers, as many others on this forum also have those books. I have 1-4 and I'm awaiting #5.
It's a shame Vol 1 especially is so poorly bound...
Cheers,
Schweik
So my assumption that forces fighting in both the West and the East were also referred to (by tankers, ground troops, the navy etc.) as the DAF incorrect? Or that Squadrons and wings etc. moved rather freely from one side to the other?
Two respected authors/historians, one armchair book reader
Hello Dana
I have a camo Question about about the Torch P-40Fs. It appears when loaded on the carriers, they were in O.D. over Grey but when flown off, they in two tone camo. When I was building a P-40F and looking for Torch colors, I began with photos in the Hangar deck on board which were O.D. yet I could not find any O.D. over Grey on flight decks or after action began, all two tone top colors. Were these P-40Fs painted in transit aboard ship? It seems the flags were applied on board as some went on backwards.
Just to clarify the loss of the OS2U Kingfisher: From the document "Participation in Operation Torch" from COMTASK-GROUP 34.1, submitted by USS Massachusetts (BB-59): "One (1) OS2U-3, BuNo 5804, piloted by Ens. Thomas A. Dougherty, A-V(N), USNR, and with Ethridge, Robert C., ARM2c, as passenger, was catapulted at 0620 and was last seen at about 0800. There has been no word of the personnel or report of the plane having been found, and it is assumed that this plane was brought down by enemy aircraft or the action of enemy anti-aircraft batteries."I can't say I love the term 'misinformation' in relation to my post. Maybe you should double check your own sources before bandying such words.
I did make a typo when i wrote "USN Losses" I should have just written "US losses"
On the US Spitfires - they were from the 31st FG whith was a US Army unit already flying with the DAF / British which were involved, they arrived in NA in August 1942 and were apparently flown to a field in Algiers specifically for Torch.
All of what I posted by the way is in Mediterranean Air War Volume III as I noted, and I indicted the page numbers so you can check - the claims and losses begin on page 66, the details on the pages before that. I am confident that there is no misinformation in that book. Several other people in this forum also have the book and can easily confirm.
The L-4s were operating from the US carriers, there is a photo of one on the deck of USS Ranger on page 81. Apparently they were not recognized by the fleet and all of them suffered at least some AAA damage. The book says they were using them for artillery (and presumably, shore bombardment) spotting.
The C-47s were used to drop paratroopers, the book says they were with the 60th Troop Carrier Group. They get into this on page 59. Losses listed on page 66 were from the 10th and 12th squadrons of the 60th TCG.
The Massachusetts launched an OS2U-3 which was shot down, unit shown was V0-7. This is on page 76. The majority of the USN losses were from the Ranger and Santee.
The French had ordered 81 F4F-3 / G-36 but never got them, the order being taken by the British. And as they were earmarked for the Aéronavale, it is doubtful that the Armée de l'Air knew a lot about their performance.I found the book interesting because of giving the identities of those involved where possible. Most of the French had been active in combat in France yet they seemed to have difficulty with the Wildcats although the French had their own Wildcats and should have known the capabilities of them. For instance: "The American pilots found themselves up against determined Frenchmen, many of whom had already seen combat during the battle for France. The Americans on the other hand, were all untested though they were proficient pilots." Combat is described between Wildcats and Hawk 75s ,D.520s, Potez 63-11s and others. One account of a Wildcat pilot bailing out and being shot at by a Hawk 75 while in his chute and returning fire with his handgun. He survived as did the French pilot.
I was really surprised that no one pointed this out before.The French had ordered 81 F4F-3 / G-36 but never got them, the order being taken by the British. And as they were earmarked for the Aéronavale, it is doubtful that the Armée de l'Air knew a lot about their performance.