Hello Schweik,
We do end up in lots of different little corners that are pretty far off topic, don't we?
It seems inevitable, and as these discussions never progress in breezy disregard of the evidence, the same exact points are debated over and over. Kind of like politics these days I guess.
The P-40 WAS facing less than first rate opposition in the MTO and PTO. There were plenty of the older types being flown by the Italians or do you have a better breakdown of the fighter sorties flown by Italians? I don't have but one number there and it is pretty clear or are you disputing its accuracy because you have a better one?
Well, I've already shown (several times, going back to many months ago) that the vast majority of Axis fighters in the MTO in 1942 through mid 1943 (when P-40s were most active in the MTO) were late model Bf 109s and Macchi 202s, and in 1943 you can add Macchi 205s and Re 2001s to the mix. If they were so easy to shoot down I'd like to know why they posed equally difficult challenges for contemporaneous Sptifires and P-38s which were the best fighters in the Allied arsenal at the time.
As for which types flew sorties, well you already stated your preference to ignore operational history, and you have made it clear you don't find my assessments of operational history reliable. Still, you and I aren't the only people reading through this debate so for the benefit of others I went through about 40 pages in the middle of MAW III and took pics with my phone. I'll go through these in a followup post. I believe it shows that nearly all claims and losses, at any rate, were of MC 202 during this time period (the 40 pages covered late 1942 into early 1943).
To Mods - can I post images of a few pages from this book?
How many of the Messerschmitts were still the older E models?
!!!!Did you read anything I posted on this? It's a little disheartening to answer a question and then have it asked again!?
The Germans used the latest and best fighters they had in the MTO. By the end of 1942 99% of the fighters were Bf 109G (specifically G-2 and G-4), with a few F-4. The 12 Bf 109E Jabos I counted separately since they weren't flying fighter sorties (and often weren't intercepted, since their escorts took on the Allied fighters). Same for the Fw 190 Jabos and attack ('schlacht') units which I counted separately from the fighter 190s of J.G.2
This is a repeat of something I posted 2 or 3 pages ago. Please notice the aircraft types:
German
Again no numbers here but the following units / types are listed:
II./JG 51 - Bf 109G-2
Stab JG 53 - Bf 109G-2
II./JG 53 - Bf 109G-4
II./ZG 1 - Me 210A1-
II./JG 2 - Fw 190A-3
I./JG 53 -Bf 109G-2
III./ZG 2 -Fw 190A-5
II./JG 27 - BF 109F-4/G-2
Stab JG 77 - Bf 109G-2
I./JG 77 - Bf 109G-2
III./ZG 26 - Bf 110F-2/Ju 88C-6
I./SchG 2 - Bf 109F-4
4.(H)/12 - Bf 109F-4
This is seven squadrons so roughly 80-100 fighters not counting command units, consisting of half of two Jagdeschwader (roughly, fighter wings) of front line Bf 109 fighters: JG. 77 which was moving into the region, and JG 53 (two squadrons), plus squadrons from three more wings: JG. 27 (elite but being phased out due to casualties / battle weariness), JG 2 (elite Fw 190 wing),
and JG 51 (elite Bf 109), plus heavy fighters, Fw 190 Jabos (ZG II) some other miscellaneous Bf 109 units (I'm not sure what 4.(H)/12 means).
Early in the Pacific war, the Japanese army would have been flying mostly Ki-43. This was a beautiful and agile aeroplane, but without speed, firepower or protection. That would hardly be first rate opposition.
Part of the opposition was the Ki-43, which I agree was excellent but no I certainly wouldn't call second rate (it was apparently the highest scoring fighter in the Japanese arsenal), but much of the opposition was also from A6M2s and later marks of the A6M, both over Darwin and Port Morseby / Milne Bay (and later other Islands), and soon after that Ki-61s and Ki-44s entered the fray as well. In fact the Tinian Air group, one of the top outfits in the IJN, was one of the main opponents of the 49th FG (P-40s) at Port Morseby.
Regardless of what was being flown, they were able to cause the Spitfires (again, top Allied fighter at the time) sent to the region trouble so I don't think it's plausible to call them second rate in 1942 or say up to mid-1943. They did not hold up well to the Hellcat or Corsair and a few P-38 pilots did well against them, but some P-38 pilots did well against Bf 109s too..
As for "debunking" performance and firepower claims: First of all, you are comparing a Me 109F-2 with the lower powered engine and less firepower against the C.202. Performance SHOULD be similar because they have nearly identical engine power. As for firepower, you obviously were not paying attention. Typically, the C.202 only had 2 x 12.7 mm Breda MG with relatively poor ballistics for a HMG. Even the 109F-2 had better hitting power with just one MG 151/15 motor cannon and had an additional pair of MG 17 LMGs. That was on the LOW side. With the Me 109F-4, there was additional engine power for better performance AND increased firepower with the MG 151/20 cannon.
This level of firepower was the same as a typical Japanese fighter and basically inadequate by the evaluation of the Italians.
The Bf 109F-2 was the contemporary of the original MC.202, that is why I made the comparison. Their firepower was equivalent, for the simple reason that the MC.202 was putting out more bullets,
and each bullet could knock down an enemy aircraft or kill a pilot. For all this talk about 'throw weight' and muzzle velocity and so forth, have any of you ever seen a 12.7mm machine gun fire? (of any brand). Try to understand this - an aircraft is not a chunk of reinforced concrete which must be chipped away by a kind of long range jackhammer to destroy it. It is a mostly hollow shell made of light aluminum alloy (or light plywood, or cloth, or all three) with a few small pieces of relatively thin armor plate inside, and
a lot of vulnerable control wires, hydraulic lines, oil tanks, squishy fuel tanks (which yes, have a sealer but aren't immune to blowing up), fragile high performance engines and
very squishy pilots. Any one of which can be messed up by a single shell let alone two or three. Even a 'bad' Heavy Machine Gun like the Breda is
still a heavy machine gun. Shooting 11 HMG shells per second from two HMG is enough to do serious damage and certainly as lethal as another plane shooting 7 or 8 rounds per second with a slightly better gun. Bf 109F-4 was better than the F-2 (though apparently hampered by the Trop filter) but subsequent 202s were also improved. Which is what led to the 205 and 205V, N/1 and N/2 (started with MC. 202bis which had the DB 605).
What do you have for the first production series for the Macchi Veltro? My understanding was that it was about a month later than the date you are listing here.
- Ivan.
That operational history was from Globalsecurity.org and they listed their source which I also listed. Wikipedia says the combat introduction of the MC 205 was in February 1943 which seems to match. From the wiki:
"The C.205 entered production only five months after its maiden flight and began reaching front line units in February 1943. At the end of April, the 1° Stormo, based in Pantelleria, is the first unit to enter action with the C.205, on Mediterranean, escorting maritime and aerial convoys to and from Tunisia. "
This also helpfully reinforces my point that units in Pantelleria and other islands were routinely engaging Allied fighters operating out of Tunisia.
