Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The British had a lot of auxiliary landing fields. This was standard routine for them. They would move the aircraft from rear area fields to forward fields during operations. They would also shuffle fields around keep the Germans guessing as to which fields they were actually using. Sometimes for the fighters planes would fly 3 sorties a day. Planes would often move back overnight to avoid night bombing. The British had a lot more trucks than the Germans and the DAF used them, hard. Damaged aircraft that could not fly out for repair were trucked out the same day, leaving nothing for the Germans to bomb.Is it a major well supplied base or a remote outpost little more than a few tents and a lot full of trucks on a patch of desert. Was it bombed recently or is it relatively protected. Is it a new field they just took over or established or is it an old one with a lot of facilities. Is it way at the end of a long supply chain or closer to the port. Etc.
What is your source for the "27 Swordfish" on Malta and at what point in time?According to the information I have there were 27 Swordfish based on Malta and in a nine month period they accounted for 50,000 tons
per month average. August 1941 was the highest with 92,000 tons sunk.
How many tons sunk by submarines isn't relevant to this, especially since Italy lost over 2,500 vessels during the war.
In August '41 the lost of merchantman (all the italians and german flag in mediterranean) by aircraft were 28,565 and this obviously were not just from Malta based swordfishAccording to the information I have there were 27 Swordfish based on Malta and in a nine month period they accounted for 50,000 tons
per month average. August 1941 was the highest with 92,000 tons sunk.
How many tons sunk by submarines isn't relevant to this, especially since Italy lost over 2,500 vessels during the war.
The 27 comes from several sources on the net.What is your source for the "27 Swordfish" on Malta and at what point in time?
As far as I can see at no point between June 1940 and the end of 1942 did the numbers of Swordfish AND Albacores on the island, let alone Swordfish alone, come to that kind of a figure. In June 1939 there were only 11 Swordfish in reserve on Malta per the Admiralty and I doubt that that number increased at all given the demand elsewhere.
830 on formation in June 1940, began with 12 Swordfish and suffered heavy losses throughout the campaign despite replacement aircraft being flown in from Ark Royal on occasion.
Jan 1941 - 5
July 1941 - 6
Oct 1941 - 2 (only 1 arrived)
828 took 11 Albacores to Malta from Ark in Sept 1942. Replacements for them were flown in from Egypt when the front line was sufficiently far advanced to permit (a plan to fly in 6 replacements in March 1942 from Argus proved abortive).
But there were periods when both squadrons were down to a mere handful of aircraft during 1942.
So where does the figure of 27 come from?
Care to name / link them so we can check their veracity / accuracy?The 27 comes from several sources on the net.
Good to know I am still the problem. Which means everyone has to put up with your interpretation and description of the Shores Et. Al.'s interpretation and description of losses and what to include in a book, not a statistical survey. It also means there can be no easy comparison to the official air force figures.Yes you seem to be having a problem with part of this discussion. In order to quantify the data, you have to have pretty simple criteria and be consistent about it. To me, 'shot down' = 'can't fly any more after being attacked'. To keep it simple. So long as you use the same criteria for both sides, I believe it's valid. It's not like I'm only counting crash landed planes on the Allied side. On that Feb 8 date the Allies didn't even make any claims IIRC.
I'm also not trying to second guess Shores here, and I'm not trying to follow the audit trail of every crash-landed aircraft.
Assuming the definition in the book is consistent of course and for both sides with similar levels of data and after the 8 February 1942 data check that is doubtful.Adding aircraft that are repaired doesn't introduce any errors if you are just counting aircraft that were shot down.
From Message 120 "But the Axis was still able to blunt Allied air attacks and prevent the Allies from doing the effective longer ranged strikes. Even when the bombers weren't shot down they often had to eject their bombs and run for home when their fighter cover was annihilated."Really? Fighter cover wasn't annihilated on several of the days I already listed? You are calling me a liar here basically. Maybe we need to plunge deeper into some of those 'bad days'.
I know, then again look at how exaggerated the Germans though the level of air attack was. Plus the amount of allied artillery fire and the raids on Axis supply lines by ground troops.Rommel's opinion is not the last word, but it's certainly a data point. The key thing is I think you will find people on both sides who share his opinion on the role of Air Power in El Alamein, but I'll get deeper into that too.
My main focus here is on the relevance of the Desert Air Force vs. the Luftwaffe. My premise is that the Luftwaffe, having dominated the skies for most of mid 1941 through mid 1942 (and contributed greatly to Axis victories in that period), started having some trouble with the British air forces in mid 1942 and that the British had acquired some abilities (through improving kit and tactics) that the Luftwaffe did not have.
On the subject of airfields in Egypt it should be remembered that Egypt was NOT a British colony. It was independent but with a very heavy British influence. The relationship between the two nations was governed by the Anglo Egyptian Treaty of 1936. That allowed Britain to place 10,000 troops and 400 pilots, plus ancillary personnel and civilian support staff, in the "Suez Canal Zone", numbers that could be increased in time of war. The "Zone" was not a closely defined strip of land as the name suggests. It was a right to base British forces "in the vicinity of the Canal" in places defined in by the Treaty. These broadly were placed between the Canal and the Nile River. From the Treaty:-The British had a lot of auxiliary landing fields. This was standard routine for them. They would move the aircraft from rear area fields to forward fields during operations. They would also shuffle fields around keep the Germans guessing as to which fields they were actually using. Sometimes for the fighters planes would fly 3 sorties a day. Planes would often move back overnight to avoid night bombing. The British had a lot more trucks than the Germans and the DAF used them, hard. Damaged aircraft that could not fly out for repair were trucked out the same day, leaving nothing for the Germans to bomb.
British ground crews were often servicing DAF aircraft on captured airfields in a few hours. The 8th Army rarely outran the DAF ground crew and the DAF was able to maintain coverage over the advancing troops at just about all times. There were number of shops back near Cairo with extensive repair facilities and engine overhaul and propeller repair. The DAF often trucked planes back to shops rather than wait for parts at forward airfields. Kept them from being targets.
Didn't always work but the DAF didn't loose many planes on the ground to either air attack or being over run. Something could not be said for the Luftwaffe.
The DAF did have priority for trucks and truck fuel, they did not have to exist on scraps and left overs. A long retreat by Rommel could result in scores if not hundreds of damaged/unserviceable airframes captured by advancing 8th Army troops as the German ground crew had no way to move them.
You are definitely still struggling with this mate. Shores lists these aircraft as 'crash landed' and I already explained, maybe five times in this thread, why I personally (not Shores) included crash landed as criteria to count as a 'loss' in answering the question "who was dominating the air war". Which by the way is painfully obvious.Good to know I am still the problem. Which means everyone has to put up with your interpretation and description of the Shores Et. Al.'s interpretation and description of losses and what to include in a book, not a statistical survey. It also means there can be no easy comparison to the official air force figures.
So on 8 February 1942 Shores has 2 Hurricanes strafed to destruction, the air force says they survived, Shores has a Kittyhawk "tail shot away", the squadron says it landed with tail damage and flew again 3 days later. How does an aircraft make that clean a landing with no tail? At its core the loss list in Shores should be very good, that is the lost and heavily damaged aircraft, given all air forces generated documents on these and the checking that has gone on. If you are going to include lightly damaged aircraft then welcome to garbage in. Like most people I have problems with garbage in approaches. Since no axis losses are included on 8 February is the conclusion all 8 allied pilots that attacked completely missed? At the very least an explanation of the differences on 8 February is needed, and it does not need you adding a third strafing victim.
Assuming the definition in the book is consistent of course and for both sides with similar levels of data and after the 8 February 1942 data check that is doubtful.
Who was dominating the air war is who was able to more missions.as criteria to count as a 'loss' in answering the question "who was dominating the air war". Which by the way is painfully obvious.
A lot things were changing slowly and other things were changing fast. A lot of things overlapped and came together in the months leading up to 2nd El Alamein.
From Wiki:
"On 3 September 1939, RAF Middle East Command—under Air Chief Marshal Sir William Mitchell, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Middle East—comprised four separate commands: for Egypt (designated Middle East), RAF Iraq, Mediterranean at Malta, and RAF Aden (No. 8, No. 203, and No. 94 Squadrons).[2] Mitchell handed over to Air Vice Marshal Sir Arthur Longmore in early May 1940. When Italy declared war in June 1940, Longmore had just 29 squadrons numbering less than 300 aircraft in the four commands detailed above."
It was under Longmore that the four commands were joined into one to provide greater flexibility. Longmore could pretty much on his own, transfer units form one area to another to where the greatest threat was or where they would be the most useful. Tedder had been assigned to the Mid east to get him out of the way in Britain where he had run afoul of Lord Beaverbrook and he became Longmore's 2nd in command.
The Mid East had become sort of a dumping ground for commanders that Churchill and his friends didn't like. And when some of these commanders insisted they needed more equipment/supplies they were labeled defeatist and/or complainers.
Wiki again:
"On 10 June 1940, RAF bomber squadrons in AHQ Egypt—under the direction of No. 202 Group RAF—totalled five squadrons of Bristol Blenheims, one of Vickers Valentias and one of Bristol Bombays. "
In Egypt for you could add No. 33, No. 80, and No. 112 Squadrons with Gloster Gladiators, No. 208 Squadron RAF with Westland Lysanders.
The Commanders in Egypt dealt with both the Italian East Africa campaign and the Advance into Libya and then in 1941 Rommel and the results of the Greek expedition (and Malta).
Longmore was relieved in May of 1941 and Tedder was not the 1st choice. He had been 2nd in Command but the 1st choice, Air Vice-Marshal O T Boyd Previously in charge of Balloon Command (cannot make this stuff up) was captured when his aircraft came down in Sicily instead of Malta. Tedder took over by default and by the time London could come up with anybody else they realized that Tedder and crew were doing a good job (even if they complained a lot) and they left him there. 1941 also saw the Irag and Iran uprisings and the need to occupy French Syria and the rather feeble attempt by Germany to aid the Arab insurrectionists (a few Me 110s and He 111s). Which still didn't raise many (any?) alarm bells in London that just maybe the Mid East wasn't a backwater front and could get by with bottom of the barrel scrapings.
Tedder and crew were doing a lot of innovating in tactics, operations, maintenance, repair, training, communications and integration of command and control. Tedder's HQ was the same as the army HQ, sub commands were in the Army sub command HQs, They learned what each others problems were and what they could do to solve each others problems, they also learned what each force could and could not do. It also made issuing orders and sharing intelligence much easier. Army and Air commanders got recon photos at the same time.
By Oct 1942 the WDAF (not counting the eastern regions ) had over 38 squadrons/flights available for 2nd El Alamein.
Don't underestimate this learning curve, The US in Tunisia had to learn some of it. Made easier by Tedder. More US units learned in Italy.
Tedder was called back to London and took part in revamping the Tactical Air Force for Normandy. Tedder was appointed Deputy Supreme Commander at SHAEF beneath General Eisenhower. However it seems he ran afoul of Montgomery and his supporters and was shuffled off to the Soviet Union to talk them into making a greater effort during/after the battle of the Bulge.
Who was dominating the air war is who was able to more missions.
Who was completing the most recon missions (intelligence).
Who was stopping the most recon missions (denying intelligence)
Who was completing the most supply interdiction missions (affecting their enemies supply)
Who was attacking the air fields the most (restricting enemy number of sorties).
Some of this gets a little complicated. Not all ground was the same, If you can force your opponent to retreat from good (solid ground) air fields to areas with known soft ground in rainy seasons his sortie rate automatically goes down. If this was worth your own losses in the bombing sorties to achieve this may be subject to question. Forcing enemy aircraft to fly further to reach the front lines means more fuel used per sortie.
Probably some stuff I over looked.
Dominating the air was lot more complicated that daily shoot down tallies.
Unfortunately they used Hurricanes for a lot of the Tac Recon.But the day time TacR seemed to be a big problem for the Allies.
Germans and Italians were operating blind a lot more often than the British.See above
Unfortunately they used Hurricanes for a lot of the Tac Recon.
I have no idea of the reasoning.
The first several hundred Tomahawks in Britain were given cameras and used for Rec Recon in early 1941.
There was some of that for sure, both in terms of people and kit. Fortunately they underestimated some of both people and kit who turned out better than expected.Maybe part of the British aircraft Hierarchy? Not good enough to be fighter? do Tac Recon.
Not good enough for Europe? go to the mid-east. Not good enough for the mid-east? Go to the Far East (Buffaloes).
It took a lot of pleading to get even one PR Spitfire. They knew they were taking losses. But the idea of not having photos bothered them even more.
There were times they scheduled recon flights to preserve Ultra. Sent out a recon plane to intercept/report a convoy so they could attack it with bombers without the Axis wondering how they found it. Once the convoy saw the recon plane they had an answer handed to them.
Germans and Italians were operating blind a lot more often than the British.
British tried with both special Hurricanes and Spitfires to stop Ju 86Rs let alone other recon aircraft.
and this was dependent on time. The 109Fs didn't show up until almost 1942?A bigger and more challenging problem was that the Axis could fly Bf 109 or MC 202 over Allied lines at altitude, and these could usually outrun any Allied fighter especially at altitude.