USAAF aircraft losses

[Stig1207]

Ray's 'number' for ETO/MTO is unsourced and off signicantly. The ultimate 'go to' authority for US Fighters was Frank Olynyk, The close second is USAF Study 85. I have both but only Olynyk includes type a/c detroyed. As Frank passed recently , I suspect that only Chrisopher Shores and I have his latest US data. I will publish the totals in my next book.

That explains a lot, but even on that basis they are off, IMO

I posted about this awhile back USAAF Fighters . It is intriguing that Wagner's numbers match the totals for the ETO/ MTO so closely; but yes, what was his source for the breakdown by specific fighter, as that is not in the USAAF Statistics.?
Btw he did the same for bombers in the ETO/ MTO and again the numbers are very close to USAAF Stats.

 

[drgondog]

I posted about this awhile back USAAF Fighters . It is intriguing that Wagner's numbers match the totals for the ETO/ MTO so closely; but yes, what was his source for the breakdown by specific fighter, as that is not in the USAAF Statistics.?
Btw he did the same for bombers in the ETO/ MTO and again the numbers are very close to USAAF Stats.

Stig - the point I was trying to make about Ray's ETO nmbers is that Study 85 had 4207 (as published) updated to 4226 (as of 2009) for ETO alone, not including MTO - which was another 1100 or so (I'l have to dig for exact number). Study 85 was published five years before Wagners Mustang Designer book.

USAAF Final 8th AF Victory Credits Board, pubished September, 1945 contained essentially the same numbers but were also detailed in type a/c destroyed - for both air and ground. What the 8th AF Report lacked were a.) updated returning POW Questionairre data, b.) scrubbing for misspelled names, c.) scrubbed for duplicate records in the detail listing.

For Type a/c Flown for victory credits my sources were primrily USAFHRC and Olynyk for deployment dates and operational changes of equipment. Kent Miller used USAFHRC and Ted Damick according to his acknowledgements and his equipment change dates closely match HRC and Olynyk -

Miller was very careful to not mention or cite specifics - I do know that his details re: 355th FG VCs and Losses very closely match my own (including errors) from my first 355th FG History 'Angels, Bulldogs and Dragons') but never cited me in his acknowledgements. Nor did he cite Olynyk. Nor did he footnote any source save MACRs for losses.

I, in turn, referenced Miller in my acknowledgments as I used his 8th AF Fighter Coomand volumes to cross refrence my own findings - but Frank Olynyk was my foundation source. RIP Dr. Olynyk.

 

[drgondog]

I posted about this awhile back USAAF Fighters . It is intriguing that Wagner's numbers match the totals for the ETO/ MTO so closely; but yes, what was his source for the breakdown by specific fighter, as that is not in the USAAF Statistics.?
Btw he did the same for bombers in the ETO/ MTO and again the numbers are very close to USAAF Stats.

Stig - looked this doc. You might notice that below 'claimed ground victories' that Ray Wagner is cited as source for Victory Claims in that document.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Stig - the point I was trying to make about Ray's ETO nmbers is that Study 85 had 4207 (as published) updated to 4226 (as of 2009) for ETO alone, not including MTO - which was another 1100 or so (I'l have to dig for exact number). Study 85 was published five years before Wagners Mustang Designer book.

That's interesting, because his numbers for P-40 victories are very odd - as far as I know, there were zero victories by any US P-40 unit in the ETO, (unless you count Italy and the Balkans) but various sources list between 560-615 confirmed victory claims by the 5 US fighter groups and one independent squadron flying P-40s in North Africa, as follows:

33rd FG - (flying P-40s Nov 42-Feb 44) 137
57th FG - (flying P-40s Aug 42 - Jan 44) 144
325th FG - (flying P-40s April 43 - Oct 43) 133
324th FG - (flying P-40s March 43 - July 44) 66
79th FG - (flying P-40s Dec 42 - March 44) 118
99th FS - (flying P-40s June 43 - June 44) 17

There was also a unit called the 27th FBG (fighter bomber group) which transitioned from A-36 to P-40 in Feb 44 and flew P-40s until June 44, but they had no confirmed claims victory claims with the P-40.

By my count that is 615 claims with P-40s in the MTO from Aug 42 - June 44. About 80% of these were claimed in North Africa and the Mediterranean islands (Sicily, Sardinia, Pantelleria, Lampedusa) and about 20% over Italy and the Balkans. Maybe a couple around Corsica. The last significant air to air combat with P-40s was during Anzio, mostly 79th FG. After that P-40s were pretty much only flying as fighter bombers.

The 99th FS was the Tuskegee squadron, which was attached to various FG during their tour. Their 17 victories while flying the P-40 are often left out of the total, which is often listed at 598 (some people claim that some of the 99th FS claims were folded into those of the other FG they were attached to, but I found this not to be the case). Jackson lists 592 victory claims which is pretty close to this. Where the 481 number comes from, I don't know. I thought maybe they left out one of the FG counts, possibly the 79th FG, if you subtract 481 from 598, you get 117 which is almost their number. But that could be just a coincidence.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Part of the confusion regarding the claims in the MTO may be due to missions flown over Europe from Italy? I think a fair number of the 1431 listed claims by P-38 units in the MTO were from missions flown out of Italy. Also (I believe) all of the 1063 MTO claims for the P-51 and the 263 claims for the P-47 were as well.

Maybe some people were counting these differently? Were all missions flown out of Italy and Sicily counted as MTO?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Looking at the XLS Stig posted....

Were AAF Beaufighter's flying missions in the ETO? A-36? I think that was all Italy and Med as well. Not sure about US Spitfires but I know they were active in the MTO, did they fly missions in England? I'd be surprised. I don't believe P-39 units scored any victories in the ETO, they had a few in the MTO.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So, where did you get your verified claims? Pilot's log books? Where did you find them? Squadron records? Where did you find THEM? How do know they were verified and by whom? Squadron records will be claims only, as approved after the first vetting at squadron level, usually conducted by the squadron S2 (intelligence) or S3 (operations) officers or, sometimes, both. So, they are very definitely "claims."

I never said they were anything other than "claims".

I mostly relied on fighter group histories, and mainly from published books. I also verified these from other books like Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War series. For example, the 325th FG only flew the P-40 for 7 months - from April to October 1943. I was able to go through all the claims for this unit in MAW and add them up, and they matched the numbers reported by the unit history (133 victory claims).

I also verified these with other 'popular' unit histories like the Carl Molesworth books, the Osprey books etc.

I do also have some individual squadron histories, several memoirs and biographies, and complete or partial scans of pilot log books from some pilots, some of which I found online and some were collected by my father who was a journalist.

 

[drgondog]

Part of the confusion regarding the claims in the MTO may be due to missions flown over Europe from Italy? I think a fair number of the 1431 listed claims by P-38 units in the MTO were from missions flown out of Italy. Also (I believe) all of the 1063 MTO claims for the P-51 and the 263 claims for the P-47 were as well.

Maybe some people were counting these differently? Were all missions flown out of Italy and Sicily counted as MTO?

Yes, 12th AF and 15th AF were all MTO ranging from North Africa to Italy for bases of operations.

The 31st FG had some Spifire victories in ETO bfore transfer and the 1st FG P-38 also before transfe to 12th AF. Both, along with 14th and 82nd were asigned to 8th AF in summer/fall 1942. All scores assigned to 8th AF/ETO prior to re-assignment.

The credits are at squadron level unless Group HQ pilot (CO, Dpty, Ops) and within specific assigned Theatre as achieved.

For example you have to look to 15th AF/MTO for a couple of 4th FG VCs achieved in July 1944 on the way home from Shuttle mission. Hofer was KIA during this time. Ditto 352nd FG.

Those won't be in 'ETO' but they ARE credited to the Fighter Squadron/Group

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I gather that the squadron level was where these were originally credited but postwar, there seemed to be a lot of efforts by fighter group organizations to aggregate the data and compile their own histories, which is basically what I relied on.

Organization in North Africa was a little confusing in the early days, same in Burma and the South Pacific. Things changed, units were renamed, dissolved, placed under different commands etc.

If a unit is flying missions out of Italy but entering say, Germany or France is that considered an ETO or MTO mission? How about say, Corsica or Sardinia flying into France?

 

[drgondog]

I gather that the squadron level was where these were originally credited but postwar, there seemed to be a lot of efforts by fighter group organizations to aggregate the data and compile their own histories, which is basically what I relied on.

Organization in North Africa was a little confusing in the early days, same in Burma and the South Pacific. Things changed, units were renamed, dissolved, placed under different commands etc.

If a unit is flying missions out of Italy but entering say, Germany or France is that considered an ETO or MTO mission? How about say, Corsica or Sardinia flying into France?

The association of squadron victory credits to the Fighter Group totals is entirely kosher. That said, when the squadron was on detached duty to another AF authority (Such as 4th and 352nd FG returning from Ukraine inearly July) those victory credits were attributed to the MTO, not ETO, in the records of USAF Study 85.

The 4th FG nd 352nd FG correctly associate those VCs to the unit, not the AF. I did not know that when I first began compiling my own database from USAF 85 until I noticed that several 4th FG VCs were found in the MTO folder.

More confusion you say? How about 99th FS? It had VCs with several FGs, including the 332nd FG where they finally ended combat ops. The 332nd histories typically lump ALL 99FS VCs into the 332nd FG - which is not correct.

The 4th and 352nd FG maintained Group integrity in early July 1944 rather than fly as detached individual squadrons under 31st or 52nd or 325th FG command.

 

[Snautzer01]

Now this turned into a good informative discussion. Reading the crap out of it.

 

[drgondog]

Organization in North Africa was a little confusing in the early days, same in Burma and the South Pacific. Things changed, units were renamed, dissolved, placed under different commands etc.

If a unit is flying missions out of Italy but entering say, Germany or France is that considered an ETO or MTO mission? How about say, Corsica or Sardinia flying into France?

I forgot to answer these. The squadron is the fundamental unit. I can't think of more than a couple of cases where the squadron was re-named other than AVG to 23rd FG. That said, If the unit was in the AAF, and as a squadron - renamed or dissolved and reactivated or was moved to another FG - each entity remained for purposs of record keeping. Flying Tigers is one example. When it was de-activated and pilots/crews were assigned to 10th AF, 23rd FG - the 23rd FG started at Zero victory cedits, but had ace pilots from AVG.

Doesn't matter where they flew from - only the command Air Force authority - and even that was murky. For example, the 354th FG and 363rd FG were temporarily assigned to escort 8th AF Bomber Command strikes. They were still 9th AF, but 8th would send 9th AF comand the flash order and 9th FC would take the frag order and assign the 354/363 to the Task Force requested by 8th AF - the VCs went to 354 and 363 and 9th FC/9th AF because neither the 354 or 363 were flying from, or operationally assigned to, 8th AF HQ designated airfields.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

yes 99th FS is a particularly tricky one. While flying P-40F/Ls, first they were with 33rd FG (which didn't go well to say the least, partly due to the beliefs of the CO, partly due to the intense pressure all the Allied FG were under at that time which briefly collapsed the 33rd itself) then the 79th and finally the 324th. Maybe another one I forgot. Other than a brief stint flying with the famous Phil Cochran of the 58th FS / 33rd FG, they didn't get a lot of help, and it wasn't until they were with the 79th that they started having significant successes.

All three of those FG are sometimes credited with victories that were really attributable to the 99th FS itself. That is how I tally them anyway.

As far as unit confusion, in the Pacific there were units like the 18th Pursuit Group originally in Hawaii which changed into the 18th Fighter Group, both of which had an unusually large number of squadrons (I think 7? including night fighters?) some of which I think were later reassigned (? I think). Down in the Philippines there was the 3rd, 20th, 17th and 34th Pursuit squadrons, which got merged into the 4th Composite Group and then reorganized into the 24th Pursuit Group which had five squadrons (including P-40B and E and P-35s). I think the 24th PG was dissolved after the fall of Bataan, as were most of the squadrons in it, but parts of the 70th Pursuit Squadron (formerly of the 24th PG) which were headed to the Philippines but were too late for the debacle, were re-routed to Brisbane and became part of the 35th FG.

Early days in the Middle East were also a bit confusing as some of the first US units were attached to British Fighter Wings and the local command structure was reorganized by the Americans once or twice, though I don't remember the details. I think maybe there was a little bit of confusion with some of the units in India / Assam valley but I may be misremembering.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Now this turned into a good informative discussion. Reading the crap out of it.

This is indeed in the goddamned weeds. And that's a compliment!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

sorry my latest post is a little vague i am not in my office right now

 

[drgondog]

Momyer was the 'charmer' CO of 33FG when 99th was assigned to 33FG. He went back to States in Oct 1943 about the same time as Monk Hunter, former CO VIII FC replaced by Kepner.

Both were the focus of a Congressional Investigation as a result of 'expressed and vocal opinions regarding the suitability of Negro air units'. To say that Momyer was Not a dringing buddy of Benjamin O Davis is an understatement of highest rank. As a brat growing up, I remember zero words of admiration for Momyer and never knew another fighter pilot/ace that likd him.

That said he was a warrior - getting DSC plus 3 SS

The 99FS had first VC on 7th February 1943 which was long before Momyer went home and IIRC it was with 33rd FG. The 324th was on patrol duty in that timeframe and the 79th didn't start combat ops until Oct 43.

The next 99FS VC was 1/27/44 - a big day, only day in which the 99th scored more than 2 until they got P-51s with 332nd FG. On Jan 27 they scored 10.5 in P-40s. Also from Memory, the 99th never were trained in P-47 like the other three 332nd squadrons. They were flying P-40s when detached from 324th FG to the 86FG (A-36s retiring) in June 1944

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Agreed 100% on Momyer. He seems to have been a good pilot, maybe also a good unit leader on the tactical level, but he wasted an opportunity with the 99th.

I think the 99th were briefly on P-39s at one point...? They had a couple of victories while with the 33rd but I think their first significant success was in Italy with the 79th, around the time of Anzio when Charles Hall got two in one mission.

I once had the honor of meeting General (at the time i think colonel) Davis when my father interviewed him back in the 80s. He liked the P-40 and had a lot of interesting things to say about it. He told us stories about the F-86 in Korea as well, and made some interesting comparisons.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the 99th were briefly on P-39s at one point...?

I have read the same thing, that for a while they flew P-39s. IIRC, it was in early 1944, in Italy.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I have read the same thing, that for a while they flew P-39s. IIRC, it was in early 1944, in Italy.

And if I'm not mistaken I believe those aircraft eventually went to the Italians (Co-Belligerent AF)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

There was an issue in that the USAAF was running out of P-40F/L, or more specifically, out of the type of (single stage, two speed) Packard-Merlin V-1650-1 engines they used. The British had given them some engines and spare parts to cover the need but there weren't enough available. Only the Merlin engined P-40s were considered capable of tangling with the Bf 109s and Fw 190s at that time, and whatever Italian planes (C 205, G55 etc.) that were still flying with the ANR. They had tried P-40K briefly with the 57th and two British units, which are very good down low, but they hadn't really worked out as fighters in that Theater due to their altitude limitations. The British were also using P-40N / Kittyhawk IV as fighter-bombers but the US didn't consider those ideal for the Theater either.

The newer mark P-39s at that time had finally found a niche as a short range ground attack aircraft in Italy, and were doing alright in that role (though still not loved by pilots). I think for a minute maybe the USAAF were thinking of switching the 99th FS over to ground attack missions, such as in A-36s or something, but those got phased out suddenly after a couple of mysterious crashes (probably due to metal fatigue in the wings from dive bombing). Then more P-51s were available, and the rest is history.