Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Out of curiosity, Juha, how many Italians were lost in the East - fighting for the Germans - by December, 1942 ...?
Italians know that fish rot from the head down ...
MM
IMHO facists were not very popular in Northern Italy, so it would have been fairly difficult to raise substatial italian forfes loyal to Mussolini and anyway Germans didn't trust much to "their" italians in 43-44. I recall only one substatial attack by Mussolini's army after summer 43,a brigade or division size fairly successful attack against Co-Belligent troops. I doubt that italians would have been very effective against British, US or French troops.
The further up the boot the greater the danger of being cut off from supplies. Everything is going to come by sea but but putting your landing site/s supply points in areas dominated by enemy air power and hundreds of miles from friendly land based air is risky. It also gives scope to enemy submarines and MTBs IF not all surrender to the Allies.
Salerno was selected as the landing point because it was within range of Spitfires based in Sicily. spitfires at theat time were the dominant fighter type in both the CW and the US air forces.
In the various books that I have read when comparing the P40 against the 109G and Fw 190, the VVS considered the P40 to be outclassed as did the RAF, the USAAF and most importantly the Germans.
I have yet to find any allied fighter pilot who said that they considered the P40 to be a match for the German fighters.
In one book 'Fighters Over Tunisia?' there were a number of interviews with allied pilots and IIRC they rated the fighters as first Spit IX, second Spit V and P38, third P40 and last Hurricane and P39.
All the books on the ME agree that allied losses dropped as soon as the first SPits arrived as the P40/Hurricnae combination wasn't up to the German fighters
P-40 get bad result v/s 109 in NA, Nikademus posted from Shore's books: P-40 (US&allies) losses vs 109: 522, 109 losses vs P-40 (US&allies): 206
The Spitfire was the a/c fighter of the allies which won back air superiority!
The spitfire was by far the most important fighter a/c at the Mediterranean at 1942/43
I think the fact that so many more units were equipped with the P-40 than the Spit or any other type is exactly why it would be considered the most "dominant" used by the Allies. I didnt say it was better than other types used in MTO. The Allies gained and kept air superiority mostly due to the numerical advantage in aircraft pilots they employed in the theater.
Also, to suggest that TAS missions dont count as, or arent as important as CAP or top cover is wrong imo. I think TAS was the most important asset of a fighter in the MTO and the main reason why the P-40 was used successfully until adequate numbers of better types became available.
The Allies gained and kept air superiority mostly due to the numerical advantage in aircraft pilots they employed in the theater.
Also, to suggest that TAS missions dont count as, or arent as important as CAP or top cover is wrong imo. I think TAS was the most important asset of a fighter in the MTO and the main reason why the P-40 was used successfully until adequate numbers of better types became available.
Shortround6 said:They gained and kept air superiority by using Spitfires and P-38s as air superiority fighters.
Shortround6 said:But TAS was NOT the most important asset of a fighter in the MTO (or even most other theaters).
Shortround6 said:Did P-40s squadrons fly "top cover" without bombs while other P-40 squadrons did the bombing
Shortround6 said:or did P-40s do the bombing while other fighter types fly top cover for them?
Shortround6 said:If the fighters "assigned" to top cover cannot protect the TAS aircraft then the TAS mission is defeated.
The P-40 was a very useful TAS aircraft which is the reason it was kept in use but without support (escort) by other fighter types it could not perform it's TAS mission.