Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"Desert" was written with pretty complete specific German claims (from Hans Ring, Shores' co-author) and Allied claims and losses, but not complete German losses. The text will often say 'so and so shot down Bf109' when it apparently really means 'so and so claimed Bf109, we don't have the actual German losses for this particular case'. This is what Frank Olynyk, author and expert on US victory credits and contributor to some of Shores' books, told me. I started to count up case by case the combats in 'Desert' but was confused by the wording about many combats, and gave up getting an accurate result once I heard that answer. Assuming you were counting all those ambiguous references to Bf109 losses (I don't know how to make judgement calls distingushing them), I think we can assume the 109's ratio was better than those counts. From what I've heard it's also true of "Tunisia" and that's why Shores plans to write updated books on both campaigns.From Shores' Fighters over the Desert , I calculated the following:
168 x Tomahawk for 47 x Bf-109
223 x Kittyhawk for 97 x Bf-109
11 x P-40F for 4 x Bf-109
summary: 402:148 (3.7:1)
From Shores' Fighters over Tunisia:
62 x Kittyhawk for 25 x Bf-109
58 x P-40F for 33 x Bf-109
summary: 120:58 (2.1:1)
=JoeB;633142
Assuming you were counting all those ambiguous references to Bf109 losses (I don't know how to make judgement calls distingushing them), I think we can assume the 109's ratio was better than those counts. From what I've heard it's also true of "Tunisia" and that's why Shores plans to write updated books on both campaigns.
Joe
In trying to count by my method, I gave up as end of 1941 in 'Desert' with ? for the German side in most cases, and many cases where the narrative said 'shot down' not 'claimed' about Axis losses but gave no further details. Just as one random example flipping around, not a 109 but pg. 70, 28 Nov 1941 it says: "Lt. Moolman shot down a Bf110', not 'claimed', but there are no details which Bf110. The impression I've gotten from someone who knows Shores is that in the early book, he meant 'claimed and taken as valid lacking contradictory info', because there were so many holes in the German loss data he had (and he had little at all about the Italians back then, 1969). And he was just developing his style, and finding out how complete a story could be told, I personally suppose, also.no. I don't count ambiguous references. I only counted the verified losses per the source. "Verified" means the source states that the plane/pilot in question went down. I never count "claims" listed in Shores books for some of the reasons you cited, it would make the totals too subjective. I've developed a pretty consistant system in the 11+ Shores books collected, along with other authors who document specific air battles. Perfect? no.....which is what i always list my figures as "estimates."
If anything the ratio is more likely to be more kind to the Allied side though it is also possible that some German losses might have been missed. Shores is not perfect and neither am i. FoT[unisia] is a good example. Shores admits from the get go that one problem in using the Deutsches Dienststelle WAST in Berlin as the primary source on German losses is that it's based on daily German casualty lists. To be recorded into this list one has to have been injured to some degree. If a German pilot bailed out or crash landed and then walked or was driven back to his unit....he might not have ended up in the list.
As such....as Shores says, its more than probably that a % of the claims made by Allied pilots in "Tunisia" were legit. Nevertheless for consistancy purposes.....i did not count the claims unless verified by the German sources just as i do for his other books and other authors such as Lundstrom.
I am thinking that the British report's figures assume a Mustang III without the rear fuselage tank perhaps.
I don't have 'Tunisia' but based on the general picture in 'Fw190 in North Africa' by Arthy and Jessen, a much more recent book (Tunisia was published in 1975), written using primary sources and German published works which became available more recently, a less than 2:1 kill ratio of Bf109's v USAAF/French P-40F's in Tunisia seems remarkably favorable to the P-40's.
arrogantly refusing to use the suggestions the British made on how to make the Hispano work, also seemingly zero interest in exploring cannon options outside of the Hispano. Probably a lot of people taking the ".50s are good enough" line and dragging their feet on progress, regardless of the fact that the M2 weighed a ton and didn't have any HE rounds.Interesting comment there Clay, any reason why they didnt push the 20mm, I was fortunate many years ago to talk with a German pilot who flew 109,s and he said "the machine can be a technical marvel, but if the pilot is not then why have it made" I think that comment boils down to the machine is only as good as the pilot.
Firepower/Weight ratio on the M2 is pathetic. It's a very heavy gun for what it delivers, weighing 2/3 as much as the hispano for 1/3 the destructive power, the power/weight ratio on the ammo actually sucks since it relies on lead rather than high explosive.I do not believe the the US was ever in need of the 20mm. The .50s were more than enough to bring down 109s and 190s. The German's needed heavier weapons that were more suited for killing bombers. If the US would have had to contend with large streams of heavy bombers, they certainly would have used heavier armament.
Firepower/Weight ratio on the M2 is pathetic. It's a very heavy gun for what it delivers, weighing 2/3 as much as the hispano for 1/3 the destructive power, the power/weight ratio on the ammo actually sucks since it relies on lead rather than high explosive.
If we had a lighter .50 like the Berezin UB or MG 131 I'd be fine with it. The M2 is a ground weapon, heavy and rugged and square. It is mediocre in the air at best.
2x20mm cannons would provide the same firepower as a 6x.50 battery at a huge weight savings (about half the total weapons weight), that's what I'm saying. Also, 4x20mm on the heavy fighters (like the P-47, F6F, F4U, P-38 ) would have been a big force multiplier when attacking ground targets.I agree with you that it was not the best choice, but it served its purpose just fine. For an Air Force whos main adversary was a single engined fighter, having a fighter with 8 .50s did the job just fine. There was no need to have 20mm or highter to counter the fighter threat.
To use a lighter version of the weapon obviously would have been better, but as I said there was no need for the USAAF to fit its fighters with heavy caliber weapons.
That is all I am saying...
There's a couple other factors at play regarding the 20mm and the M2.
I think in the time frame we are speaking of, (allied) cannons were slower firing both in rate and velocity which tended to favor the M2 for air to air combat other than hitting bigger targets like bombers. You can look at weight of fire statistics and all the jargon that accompanies such comparisons but the fact remains if you can't hit what you're shooting at then the HE rounds are less effective.
You can have six streams of bullets fireing at a higher rate and losing less velocity than 2 streams that fire at a lower rate and lose more velocity. So not only do you have more streams of bullets but better arch and range for air to air combat.
Difference is that when a couple HE rounds land they do much more damage, but I have to think that it also came down to the fact that most aircraft were vulnerable to machine gun fire alone.
I agree if the US had to face a heavy bomber threat then cannons would've seen more service. I dont think the P-40 could ever be decribed as an interceptor so maybe thats why the idea of cannons was left alone.
I was hoping to get back on topic, perhaps if someone had some roll rate figures for the 109, particularly the F or early G series so at least so the comparison can pertain to the P-40,
So far much of the roll performance suggests very poor roll response at higher speeds along with low elevator authority because of the 109s short stick throw, however numbers are not too specific other than what i found at SpitfirePerformance.com
Bill
Early in the war the M2 was firing at 450-500 rpm, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think the AN/M2 was available until mid-war.
None of that changes the fact that the M2 was unforgivably heavy (38 Kg). German 13.1(16.6 kg), Japanese 12.7(23kg), and Russian 12.7(21.5 kg), Italian 12.7(29Kg) were all lighter and all had HE ammo.