Performance modifications done at Squadron level. (1 Viewer)

[Steamed_Banana]

If we are going for partially equipped

(snip)_

Now based on equipped, partially equipped, not equipped ruling you seem to be using,

Lets be clear on one thing, this wasn't my 'ruling', it was the basis in the source I was using, which seems to be logical since as you noted and i have also observed, moving types around and borrowing from unit to unit was very common. And 260 Sqn did seem to be flying some combat missions with the Kitty IIs well after the introduction of the IIIs. More to the point for me this was the basis of the anecdote I quoted about Kittyhawk IIIs suffering more losses which made the commanders nervous and caused them to switch back to Kittyhawk II for a while in this particular unit.

Which gives us some insight into the different ways these variants were perceived by the British and how they were used in Theater.

To me it makes sense as they were still flying some air to air combat missions (defensive 'CAP', fighter sweeps, escorting Bostons, escorting older Kittyhawks or Hurricanes etc.) and encountering front line Axis fighters which was more perilous in the Kittyhawk IIIs, as this publication helpfully lists the altitude of many of the engagements, which were often if not usually between around 14,000 - 20,000 ft / 4,267 - 6096m, and this was getting a bit above the comfortable altitude for a P-40K for sure.

P-40Ks did better in fighter the Pacific and CBI because they had more of a speed advantage over the Japanese fighters and combats were often taking place at lower altitudes. The early A6M2 and Ki-43-I fighters (which persisted on the front lines longer than they should have) didn't have quite the altitude advantages of the Bf 109F/G or MC 202 / 205. When the A6M3 and Ki-43-II types were arriving in the South Pacific the US had the 44th FS and one other (I forgot which unit it was?) flying P-40Fs, plus they had the P-38s and F4Us, the Wildcats had some altitude capacity, and later you got Hellcats and P-47s and Spit VIII and merlin engined Mustangs.

then we need to change a lot of information - with the following, as all these Units had 1-6 P-40F's or P-40L's (and flew them at least a few times).

Kittyhawk II (P-40F) Units now to read - 3 SQN, 260SQN, 1 MECCU, 1 METS, 239WG TF, and 2RSU TF
Kittyhawk II (P-40L) Units now to read - 3 SQN, 260SQN, 349SQN, 1 MECCU, 1 METS, MEFC, DAF TF, and likely 5RFU

Was 349 Sqn flying combat missions with them? I'm not so much interested in the training units.

Yes, some books are in error over a few things, I've seen such things as USAAF only using 5 P-40M (USAAF one of the biggest users of P-40M) , Soviet Union getting Merlin models (This came about as batches of M and N models went to Russia from RAF allocations and had FS serial numbers, the P-40L had FS Serial numbers so you put 1 and 1 together and you get 3 in this case), the P-40L tail issue and Tomahawks over Europe issues (see below) - although I've not seen the one with the British not having the Merlin models before.

It's mentioned in about 5 books I have ...

Without touching the Tomahawks (they're a different mess), the Kittyhawk was originally supposed to equip 3, 33, 94, 112, 260 and 450 SQN, then there was much shuffling around to get what actually happened.

It's really not surprising that the RAF was a "bit miffed" - especially with what happened with the P-40E-1's with the much reduced shipment of aircraft (supposed to get 264 from Feb-May 1942 - by 8th Apr 42 had only been advised of 31 being shipped - this continued until P-40M's, as even K models are messy) any attempt to mess around with the F model was always going to be problematic, so when the USAAF forces said we want to take 60 F models (as spares for the 57FG who were only training at the time) in exchange we'll give you 60 K models the RAF said no - so they just took them anyhow and to make matters worse the USAAF didn't actually use many of them and gave most of what they took to the FFAF, with the 57th FG still getting K models anyhow). Then you can add additional relocation of the P-40L's shipped as well.........(if you want to read some of the correspondence for this info above, I recommended file Air 2/7498 in the British National Archives).

I'll take your word for it. And I don't blame the British for being miffed at all. It was their idea after all... and they certainly needed them. But as I said the RR policy vis a vis engine production also had something to do with it. If they had been able to make 1,000 more L models or long tailed F it might have had some positive benefit. I would argue they were more useful than the M and a lot of the N, though it seems the N did have a bigger bomb load.

Seeing the first M models didn't leave the US until late Feb/Mar 1943 then I think you're fairly safe saying P-40K here, but mostly Short tailed K-1/K-5 models (4 long tailed K models did make it to 260SQN in this period as well).

James Edwards seemed to like the long tailed K a lot, and rated it as a good fighter. He had a lot of issues with the stability which, interestingly, the Sqn publication also mentions as a factor in why they phased out the short tailed P-40F to focus on the long tailed Ls.

Ye gods man - no no and more no...............the L model had long tails, full stop, end of (yes the P-40F was mixed)..........

I can only hope the gods can forgive me my grave error !!

this is one of those great P-40 myths that has hung around in books (the first 50 having short tails (serials 42-10430-42-10480)) and other print materials for the last god knows how many years (in the same vein as the Tomahawks in the UK never flew operations over mainland Europe apart from one unofficial sortie.......well I'm sure Colin can attest to 268 SQN and a number of other Tomahawk Units flying over Europe, these having both claims and losses whilst doing so).

That said the Long/short tail story of the L model is easily disproved by the existence of photos of 42-10436 (#13) of the 317th FS, 42-10439 (A-10) of the 99th FS, 42-10461 (A-19) of the 99th, 42-10476 (#89) of the 319th FS all of which have long tails, as well as other photos that haven't appeared in print or on ebay

View attachment 860697

Here's one of those pesky first 50 "Short" tailed L models - see an issue?

Buz

I really don't, but I'm not super invested in the 'controversy' over whether any short tailed Ls were made. It's just what a lot of secondary literature says about it, as you noted.

 

[Frog]

The Squadron book says they phased out the short tailed types and gave them to the French

The P-40 F and later P-40 L delivered to the Groupe de Chasse II/5 were from USAAF origin, the first 12 P-40 F on november 25, 1942.
Its fuselage painted emblem was the Indian Head of the Lafayette squadron which of course made impression.

Picture : Library of Congress :

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The P-40 F and later P-40 L delivered to the Groupe de Chasse II/5 were from USAAF origin, the first 12 P-40 F on november 25, 1942.
Its fuselage painted emblem was the Indian Head of the Lafayette squadron which of course made impression.

Picture : Library of Congress :

View attachment 860754

Yes the Squadron No 18 book also mentions this, the ones the British gave to the French were used in training units and some were given at the end of the war. The US supplied Lafayette Escadrille (I thought it was two squadrons, not sure if II/5 is just one or not(?), but I'll defer to your knowledge on it). According to my notes they scored 8 confirmed victories between July and Sept 1943 with the type. Do you know anything about the Free French use of the type? I was wondering if the planes they got were clapped out or 'good'. ?

 

[tomo pauk]

I'd say that our newest forum additions - Mr. Banana and Mr. Buz - are doing their best to prop up this place. Thank you.

 

[Frog]

Yes the Squadron No 18 book also mentions this, the ones the British gave to the French were used in training units and some were given at the end of the war. The US supplied Lafayette Escadrille (I thought it was two squadrons, not sure if II/5 is just one or not(?), but I'll defer to your knowledge on it). According to my notes they scored 8 confirmed victories between July and Sept 1943 with the type. Do you know anything about the Free French use of the type? I was wondering if the planes they got were clapped out or 'good'. ?

The transfer of the first P-40 F were from the 33rd Fighter Group.
Technically, it was not a Free French unit but a former Vichy unit, the first one to resume combat against the Axis (notice in the hangar the tail of a H-75 still with the Vichy neutrality red and yellow stripes).
You have two interesting link hereunder.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://imagesdefense.gouv.fr/fr/le-groupe-de-chasse-gc-ii-5-la-fayette-en-tunisie.html&ved=2ahUKEwiIzfWlgsWRAxXuaqQEHd5hBSsQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1DaJvoqBfoK2wagyYZyc7B

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=http://maquette72.free.fr/themes/lafayette/P40_normal/P40_historique.php&ved=2ahUKEwiIzfWlgsWRAxXuaqQEHd5hBSsQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0oCh_a0uKWYCyQOMf1929t

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Thank you, wonderful to see this!

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Wow so interesting to read about Col Howard Willis playing a major role in this, being a former Lafayette Escadrille pilot! (?) if I'm reading that right? So it sounds like they didn't get clapped out fighters after all. They were also fighting hard in one of the most difficult periods for the Allied fighters, and engaging with Fw 190s. 33rd Fighter Group, to which they were attached, had a lot of problems when they first encountered these types. GC II/5 didn't have much time to learn the type though they were at least familiar with it's ancestor, the H-75.

 

[Frog]

Do not forget that GC II/5 had already seen the elephant in 1940, shooting down 48 confirmed and 22 probables for 22 H 75 lost.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I opened up Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air war and looked up the Jan 19, 1943 combat they mentioned in the first article in which it mentions two FW 190 shot down. Shores does show one claim by Lt. Rene Rubin of GC II/5 for one Fw 190 on that day.

Sure enough German losses for the day include Fw 190A-3 WnR 0265 "White 5+" from 4/JG 2 "lost in the Kairouan area after combat with P-40s", pilot Uffiz Heinz Gabler MiA.

A US P-38 pilot also made a claim for a Fw 190 on the same day, but given that the Germans reported the loss as from P-40s and also the area they mentioned I think this was Lt Rubin's victory.

GC II/5 lost three P-40s in the same engagement that crash-landed, though the pilots all survived.

This is a rare victory by the Allies over JG 2, elements of which were brought in for a short period to bolster Axis air forces in early 1943, and they wrought havoc while they were there, without taking many losses. The Fw 190 was new in the Theater and using the tactics that worked against Bf 109s and MC 202s did not work against these planes. Later on by the time they were in Sicily and Italy the Allied pilots adjusted and didn't suffer such heavy losses.

A few days later on Feb 2 1943 the US 33rd FG (flying P-40F) suffered their worst day in the Theater when they lost no less than 11 aircraft and several pilots to what they thought were Bf 109s but were in fact Fw 190A-3s of JG 2.

 

[Buz101]

I was wondering if the planes they got were clapped out or 'good'. ?

These were 'new' aircraft - basically they had limited flying, and zero combat flying (likely had around 15-20 total time). These aircraft were the 33rd FG initial equipment to start combat ops (their previous P-40Fs had been exchanged in SEP/OCT 1942) - (Reference: History of the 58th FS - Reel A0744)

Well they appear to be correct in this case. So I'm ok with it. They also give the tail numbers and pilot names etc.

Without reading through the text (busy working through V-1710 and V-1650-1 engines and which aircraft they were fitted to when they left the factory) , and only using the tables and captions there's numerous errors - a couple that jump out are the Caption under FL294 (in French service) - FS490 didn't go to the French - this was a specialised air frame that was in service with 3 SQN, (as the WGCDR aircraft), painted with a checker tail plane and was later converted to a 2-seater. US serial number was not 42-10628, which was the serial number for FS448 which did go to the French.

Same with the caption under FS452 - the number 5 and the white markings on the rear fuselage, and cockpit are not an OTU marking. 239WG TF tended to use a letters (sometimes full sqn codes for the SQN that physically had the aircraft on strength), 5RFU used Letter and number and only 71/73OTU used numbers around this time (73 used a mix of numbers or letters) but didn't have the type.. The number 5 is signifying the 5th aircraft in one of the Takoradi convoys, the white markings was so that the aircraft could be easily spotted from the air should it have to put down – Aircraft was part of air convoy (one of these three -730, 735 or 739) out of Takoradi in April 1943 (the white was supposed to be removed before going to a SQN, but sometimes the residue can still be seen in images).

Finally If you're happy with missing 25% of the losses (around 20ish) and having incorrect/incomplete data for another thirty three then this book checks the boxes for accuracy (Reference: 540/541, P4 Files and Duty Pilots logbooks, as well as Diary and logbook entries)

I opened up Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air war and looked up the Jan 19, 1943 combat they mentioned in the first article in which it mentions two FW 190 shot down. Shores does show one claim by Lt. Rene Rubin of GC II/5 for one Fw 190 on that day.

Should read the 21st Jan not 19th Jan, (Reference: The above book and ORB for II/GC5 for Jan 43)

Was 349 Sqn flying combat missions with them? I'm not so much interested in the training units.

Ack then just for background - 349 did not fly them in combat and ok to training Units - they are harder to track anyhow

It's mentioned in about 5 books I have ...

Can you advise which books, would like to check it out..... if only to give me a WTF moment, but more pictures to reference is always good (if they have some new ones)



Buz

 

[Buz101]

Pretty sure it was the other way around, Kittyhawk II was P-40F and Kittyhawk IIa (which came after, of course) was P-40L

Well I suppose the RAF's own Form 78, Form 1180 and Form 622 could all be wrong here and that the P-40F was the Kittyhawk II and the P-40L really was the Kittyhawk IIA - or maybe your "pretty sure" could be in error.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

These were 'new' aircraft - basically they had limited flying, and zero combat flying (likely had around 15-20 total time). These aircraft were the 33rd FG initial equipment to start combat ops (their previous P-40Fs had been exchanged in SEP/OCT 1942) - (Reference: History of the 58th FS - Reel A0744)

Yeah thanks, so I gathered from the French article. It's a rather remarkable story.

Without reading through the text (busy working through V-1710 and V-1650-1 engines and which aircraft they were fitted to when they left the factory) , and only using the tables and captions there's numerous errors - a couple that jump out are the Caption under FL294 (in French service) - FS490 didn't go to the French - this was a specialised air frame that was in service with 3 SQN, (as the WGCDR aircraft), painted with a checker tail plane and was later converted to a 2-seater. US serial number was not 42-10628, which was the serial number for FS448 which did go to the French.

Same with the caption under FS452 - the number 5 and the white markings on the rear fuselage, and cockpit are not an OTU marking. 239WG TF tended to use a letters (sometimes full sqn codes for the SQN that physically had the aircraft on strength), 5RFU used Letter and number and only 71/73OTU used numbers around this time (73 used a mix of numbers or letters) but didn't have the type.. The number 5 is signifying the 5th aircraft in one of the Takoradi convoys, the white markings was so that the aircraft could be easily spotted from the air should it have to put down – Aircraft was part of air convoy (one of these three -730, 735 or 739) out of Takoradi in April 1943 (the white was supposed to be removed before going to a SQN, but sometimes the residue can still be seen in images).

Finally If you're happy with missing 25% of the losses (around 20ish) and having incorrect/incomplete data for another thirty three then this book checks the boxes for accuracy (Reference: 540/541, P4 Files and Duty Pilots logbooks, as well as Diary and logbook entries)

Lol... I was specifically referring to the issue of 260 Sqn using Kittyhawk II or IIa longer than you said they did, initially, and that they moved back from Kittyhawk III to II again because of losses. We all have to be careful about making very definitive statements about history mate.

I'm sure you can find little errors in captions and so on in almost any book, I certainly can most of the time. This one seems to be quite accurate compared to other sources I have though, and since they do give the serial numbers, dates, times, pilot names and so on, you can double check with other sources and find which errors may actually be in there easily enough, which not all secondary literature of this type does.

As for the number of losses, I'd have to look at other sources very carefully. What are you counting as a loss? I notice the Squadron book counts 'probables' along with 'confirmed' victories which I normally don't do, but given that Edwards was flying with 260 sqn some of those 'probables' were actually victories, some of the 'damaged' claims too. So the number may be fairly close for that unit.

Should read the 21st Jan not 19th Jan, (Reference: The above book and ORB for II/GC5 for Jan 43)

Ah you are right that's on the 21st. My bad. Reading through the text it sounds like the three French Warhawks that crash landed were not necessarily due to the Fw 190s, one ran out of fuel, one hit by flak, one turned over while landing.

Ack then just for background - 349 did not fly them in combat and ok to training Units - they are harder to track anyhow

Can you advise which books, would like to check it out..... if only to give me a WTF moment, but more pictures to reference is always good (if they have some new ones)

I'll double check when I have some time, as I said before I do have a lot of irons in the fire at the moment. A couple of them are books most people in here probably have though.

Buz

 

[Buz101]

As for the number of losses, I'd have to look at other sources very carefully. What are you counting as a loss?

There's two list on each SQN, one counting "combat losses" (which based on what is listed is any aircraft lost or receiving CAT 3 damage whilst on any point of a operation), and a list of aircraft lost in accidents on non-combat operations (training, Ferry flights etc)...... These listing are missing quite a few - such as the aircraft written in the air raid on Agnone in Aug 1943 (1 destroyed and about 6 damaged), or the aircraft that whilst landing at Nefatia in Mar 1943, on return from Ops, struck another aircraft and never flew again......(plenty of other examples as well)

The other information I refer to - with just a small bit of research the code letters for about 70% (from Jul 42) 3 SQN aircraft can be found in official documents yet only a few are mentioned on the listing.......this is what Colin was pointing out in his post about the sometimes lack of depth in the research.

given that Edwards was flying with 260 sqn some of those 'probables' were actually victories, some of the 'damaged' claims too

Here's an interesting question for you then (apart from not wanting to touch this problem set normally at all), when was Edwards first with 94SQN? and which claims should be upgraded and why?

Buz

 

[MIflyer]

I especially like this P-40 shot from AK. Now just look at that collection of aircraft and what it implies. Both short tails and N canopies are present. A testament to the durability of those aircraft, especially given the AK Theater.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

There's two list on each SQN, one counting "combat losses" (which based on what is listed is any aircraft lost or receiving CAT 3 damage whilst on any point of a operation), and a list of aircraft lost in accidents on non-combat operations (training, Ferry flights etc)...... These listing are missing quite a few - such as the aircraft written in the air raid on Agnone in Aug 1943 (1 destroyed and about 6 damaged), or the aircraft that whilst landing at Nefatia in Mar 1943, on return from Ops, struck another aircraft and never flew again......(plenty of other examples as well)

Yeah that's kind of what I figured. The thing is, especially with the non combat losses, it gets trickier and trickier to define definitively due to the increasing complexities of borrowing aircraft, borrowing parts from one aircraft to fix another (sometimes with the plan to replace the original part later, though that may or may not have actually happened) frequently moving bases, the effects of weather or supply interruptions, personnel loss. Even with combat, an aircraft with relatively minor damage like a blown tyre or a single bullet hole in a radiator might be grounded and then later be abandoned even though it was repairable. We have had a few discussions about this recently on some other threads. I think you just have to pick your criteria and be consistent, then I'm Ok with some gray areas because I think it's inevitable.

The other information I refer to - with just a small bit of research the code letters for about 70% (from Jul 42) 3 SQN aircraft can be found in official documents yet only a few are mentioned on the listing.......this is what Colin was pointing out in his post about the sometimes lack of depth in the research.

I wasn't necessarily saying they never made any mistakes, but in this particular case they seemed to be accurate. Overall I'm pretty happy with the ones I have, it's a lot of useful data packed into a pretty small book. More useful and more detailed than a lot of other books I've spent more money on.

Here's an interesting question for you then (apart from not wanting to touch this problem set normally at all), when was Edwards first with 94SQN? and which claims should be upgraded and why?

Buz

I don't know his history with 94 Sqn, except I think he made one claim (?) I am not sure I'd go as far as to say his claims should be 'upgraded' in any official way, (because again, gray areas). Wartime claims are just that - the claims verified by the Air units during the war. Post war verification is another matter. Some light can be shed - enough that we know overclaiming was very common and often rather excessive, but pinning down precisely who really shot down what aircraft is of course tricky. In some cases it's possible, but in a lot especially where combat is complex and involves a lot of aircraft, it isn't.

But Edwards combat history is pretty heavily scrutinized, because he was a high scoring ace for Canada, and for the DAF, and because he seems to have shot down a couple of the Luftwaffe's very high scoring 'experte' aces - Otto Schulz and Günter Steinhausen for example. A few of his victories which were later if not proven, at least shown to be possible (due to corresponding enemy losses on the day and in the area) were listed by Edwards as 'damaged' or 'probables', because he was very strict as to whether he made a claim. As I recall (forgive me if I made a mistake here) when he shot down Schulz he didn't even record a claim becuase he thought nobody was around to witness his victory - but the guy Schulz was strafing, another Canadian ace named Walter Conrad from 274 Sqn, survived the incident, partly due to Edwards intervention, and saw the whole thing and reported it.

I've read his memoir "Kittyhawk Pilot" and seen and read a few interviews with him and a few of his colleagues, as well as reading unit histories of 260 Sqn and several other DAF units. But it's been a while I don't remember details off the top of my head.

 

[Buz101]

Nice picture of B-24 and both the N models and older E models (this photo was taken post Jun 1943 - so the E models would have been around 18 months to 2 years old). As you state the E models did soldier on in Alaska for a long period, as did the K models, quite often re-engined with V-1710-81 or even V-1710-99 engines

 

[MIflyer]

(this photo was taken post Jun 1943 - so the E models would have been around 18 months to 2 years old)

Supposedly the N models first came off the production line in March 1944, and the N-1, fastest of all the production Warhawks, did not have the revised clear rear canopy that came out with the P-40N-5-CU. So those old E models were indeed getting rather long in the tooth by the time that photo was taken, rather remarkable considering the AK environment. Edwards Park flew Airacobras in the Solomans and said that a friend from his pilot training days came to visit their field, flying a P-40, and saying he did not know when they would ever get newer airplanes, since the old ones did not seem to wear out; that sure looks like the case with those in AK.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I thought Ns were out much earlier than that..? more like mid 1943

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Hey B Buz101 , speaking of timelines, do you know when they started putting antenna masts on P-40s instead of running the antenna wires out to the wingtips? Was it something that happened with specific variants or just a gradual change? A field mod or a factory mod? Did it represent putting in a different type of radio? Longer range?