Was Air Power decisive in the two battles of El Alamein?

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So which of you books supports the claim the air force saved the ground forces in Battleaxe from total annihilation?

That was in the video of the interview with the Canadian historian provided by "33k in the air" in post 143, and apparently "The Mediterranean Air War" by Robert Ehlers, which the historian in the video refers to as a good source. MikeMeech also posted excerpts from this book in post 80 and (IIRC) some other posts. These excerpts incidentally are in sync with several of the points I made early in this thread, such as about the importance of the P-40Fs and Spitfires, the extra strain to Axis logistics caused by Allied air attacks (especially by the newer Allied medium and heavy bombers), and the heavy impact of Allied air support on the outcome of battle, as noted by Erwin Rommel himself.

I later watched the video interview and summarized the points made by the historian Mike Bechtold in post 195, including the point he made about the original air commander in the Western Desert, Raymond Collishaw, a 60 victory WW 1 ace. I didn't realize Collishaw was even Canadian until you pointed it out as a way of casting aspersions. I did not agree with everything he said but I learned a bit especially about the earlier period in 1941.

Several points made by this historian Bechtold (and presumably, by the author Ehlers who he refers to a lot in the interview) seemed to really rub you the wrong way, including specifically this notion that the air force save the ground forces from annihilation in the aftermath of Battleaxe (by dropping the 'air umbrella' strategy and concentrating on strafing and bombing Axis tanks). This was again, not my invention, maybe you can take it up with Bechtold.

As for the idea of the Air Umbrella vs. more traditional CAS, and the debate over whether ground force commanders should control the air force missions or the air force commanders, offensive vs. defensive roles, these are broader issues and I have read many other sources on this during 1942 and 1943. The consensus seems to be that keeping an 'air umbrella' over the ground forces was wasteful of resources and ineffective.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Some of the Stukas reputation in France came from the already mentioned Char B1 tanks and the Char 2C
View attachment 702641
Most of which (out of ten, how many photos?) were "knocked out" on trains (1 or more) that were stopped by Stukas.
Most of them were not destroyed by Stukas. The crews could not get them off the flat cars and most of the destroyed ones were burned, destroyed by their own crews. Not the story the Germans put out
The Char B1 had a few problems of it's own, poorly trained crews, a complicated steering system that had to used to aim the gun( 0 degrees of traverse) and more than a tendency to breakdown leading to collisions with building and trees (and photo ops). Yes it was very dangerous to German troops.
View attachment 702642
But like many of the big German tanks at the end of the war, many broke down and were destroyed by their own crews.
Signal magazine often had a different take on things

The accuracy of dive bombing has been greatly exaggerated. Pinpoint accuracy was not possible. Here's is what the US navy said about it. Note that a 30 feet circle is a much bigger. target than a tank.

Even assuming that the Stuka was twice as accurate as the SB2C hundreds of bombs would be required to take out a gun emplacement let alone a tank.

I believe I posted this paper before but here it is again.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I just learned something interesting (to me anyway)

Apparently only one unit flying B-26s in the Med actually set up the torpedo carrying rig and used them to drop torpedoes in anti-shipping attacks.

And that was 14 Sqn RAF, starting while based in Egypt!

They started out with Vickers Wiellesleys in 1940 (which is rather amazing to me as I did not realize these were actually used in action in WW2!)

This is one from 47 RAF over Eritrea in 1941!

14 Sqn lost a Wellesly over Eritrea on June 14, 1940, shot down by Capitano Mario Vistini in a CR.42.

Despite vulnerability to Axis fighters, these planes continued to be used in the fighting around the Horn of Africa. Apparently the last Wellesly was replaced in November 1941.

14 Sqn got Blenheim bombers in Sept 1940, fully replacing the Wellesly's by November.

They were sent to Egypt in April 1941, and took part in the fighting over Crete and during Battleaxe. They lost five Blenheims on 21 May to fighters from J.G. 27.

In August 1942 they were pulled out of combat to retrain on Martin B-26 Marauders. They were the first RAF unit to fly them.

Their first Marauder mission was a recon flight on 26 Oct 1942. Their missions included long range recon, anti-ship strikes, minelaying, anti-submarine missions. They later moved to Algeria, then Italy and Sardinia. 14 RAF sunk at least three Axis ships with Maruaders in early 1943 (after El Alamein). They later acted as 'spotters' for Beaufighters of 39 Squadron. They seem to have been one of the relatively few Commonwealth units that liked the Marauder, as they stayed with it until Sept 1944.

Maybe the US Marauder units in the MTO never carried torpedoes because the American torpedoes basically still didn't work in 1942. Which raises the question, was 14 Sqn using British or American torpedoes? If the latter, it seems like that might have been a useful innovation to pass on to the several USAAF B-26 units which came after Torch.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

They were not my words, it was published in a book by Christopher Shores. I'm not his editor. How about this for a maxim:

Historical Data Matters. Don't try so hard to fight it.

And (I guess you somehow missed this?) the unit history said "tail shot away". So take it up with the crew chief or the officer that wrote that. Because obviously if there was no tail at all the aircraft would have crashed.



Again, take that up with the fellow who wrote it!

Yes, you didn't write that description. You instead posted a photo with the tail tangibly on the airplane, with surfaces shot up, but that ignores the crux of the matter, which is that an airplane with no tail at all rarely manages a three-point landing. That's also going to the difference between "damaged" and "destroyed". If it's sitting on its tailwheel, the tail is probably still there, dig?

You posted that photo to support your interpretation, but let's be fair: it isn't evidence that your interpretation is actually correct.

Only to the painfully literal minded. That photo was just an attempt to explain what the historical record probably reflected.

... in your opinion, of course.

Trying to explain the historical record that some of you struggle to grasp. Keep in mind, I didn't invent the phrase 'tail shot off'. Or 'tail shot away'. The photo was to help you and one other guy (that I know of) understand something which I think is obvious to most people reading the thread. It isn't defending anything I wrote, and I god damn sure as hell didn't make any mistake here. You should take your own advice.

I'm fine admitting error, but since we're talking about subjective opinions and you haven't shown yours to be correct, I'm fine with my assessment that the picture you chose is not appropriate to depict "tail shot off". "Shot away"? Sure, I can buy that, the surfaces are shot away, but it is not "off".

Therein lies your mistake, putting that pic up as evidence of your opinion when it is of course not such. Had it been the actual airplane in question, you'd have a much stronger point. It's not my fault you mismatched written description and personally-selected picture found online; that's on you.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Yes, you didn't write that description. You instead posted a photo with the tail tangibly on the airplane, with surfaces shot up, but that ignores the crux of the matter, which is that an airplane with no tail at all rarely manages a three-point landing. That's also going to the difference between "damaged" and "destroyed". If it's sitting on its tailwheel, the tail is probably still there, dig?

You posted that photo to support your interpretation, but let's be fair: it isn't evidence that your interpretation is actually correct.



... in your opinion, of course.



I'm fine admitting error, but since we're talking about subjective opinions and you haven't shown yours to be correct, I'm fine with my assessment that the picture you chose is not appropriate to depict "tail shot off". "Shot away"? Sure, I can buy that, the surfaces are shot away, but it is not "off".

Therein lies your mistake, putting that pic up as evidence of your opinion when it is of course not such. Had it been the actual airplane in question, you'd have a much stronger point. It's not my fault you mismatched written description and personally-selected picture found online; that's on you.

Dude. They don't have photos of every aircraft that flew or got damaged in WW2. I'm not going to spend hours pouring through photos to find an exact match even if there was one, which I seriously doubt there was. I didn't need to do that to begin with. It was an example to help G.S. understand what the data was reporting. Nothing more, nothing less. "Shot away" isn't actually any different than "Shot off" either.

Whenever I post a photo of something to make a point in this thread (like the upside down tanks) it seems to bother you. I think you are being very literal minded. It's an analogy, i.e. something similar to what is being discussed. Not an exact one for one depiction.

I don't mind that you don't buy the analogy, but I don't appreciate being accused of equivocation or insincerity. I'm 100% on the level here.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Dude. They don't have photos of every aircraft that flew or got damaged in WW2. I'm not going to spend hours pouring through photos to find an exact match even if there was one, which I seriously doubt there was. I didn't need to do that to begin with. It was an example to help G.S. understand what the data was reporting. Nothing more, nothing less. "Shot away" isn't actually any different than "Shot off" either.

Whenever I post a photo of something to make a point in this thread (like the upside down tanks) it seems to bother you. I think you are being very literal minded. It's an analogy, i.e. something similar to what is being discussed. Not an exact one for one depiction.

I don't mind that you don't buy the analogy, but I don't appreciate being accused of equivocation or insincerity. I'm 100% on the level here.

I did not accuse you of insincerity, but equivocation can certainly be unintentional, and I believe that's the case here. Trying to demonstrate a point about one plane by posting a picture of another falls in line with that. Yes, you're trying to make a point. No, your picture does not evidence your point.

As for "shot away" vs "shot off", surfaces can be shot away, but if the tail is off, the tail is off. Perhaps you're right that the language is sloppy, but when I read "shot off", which was the original verbiage I was responding to, and then seeing a pic of a plane with the tail definitively on, getting mad at me for pointing that out is is kinda silly ... dude.

 

[EwenS]

I just learned something interesting (to me anyway)

Apparently only one unit flying B-26s in the Med actually set up the torpedo carrying rig and used them to drop torpedoes in anti-shipping attacks.

And that was 14 Sqn RAF, starting while based in Egypt!

They started out with Vickers Wiellesleys in 1940 (which is rather amazing to me as I did not realize these were actually used in action in WW2!)

View attachment 703056

View attachment 703057
This is one from 47 RAF over Eritrea in 1941!

14 Sqn lost a Wellesly over Eritrea on June 14, 1940, shot down by Capitano Mario Vistini in a CR.42.

Despite vulnerability to Axis fighters, these planes continued to be used in the fighting around the Horn of Africa. Apparently the last Wellesly was replaced in November 1941.

14 Sqn got Blenheim bombers in Sept 1940, fully replacing the Wellesly's by November.

They were sent to Egypt in April 1941, and took part in the fighting over Crete and during Battleaxe. They lost five Blenheims on 21 May to fighters from J.G. 27.

View attachment 703058

In August 1942 they were pulled out of combat to retrain on Martin B-26 Marauders. They were the first RAF unit to fly them.

View attachment 703059

Their first Marauder mission was a recon flight on 26 Oct 1942. Their missions included long range recon, anti-ship strikes, minelaying, anti-submarine missions. They later moved to Algeria, then Italy and Sardinia. 14 RAF sunk at least three Axis ships with Maruaders in early 1943 (after El Alamein). They later acted as 'spotters' for Beaufighters of 39 Squadron. They seem to have been one of the relatively few Commonwealth units that liked the Marauder, as they stayed with it until Sept 1944.

Maybe the US Marauder units in the MTO never carried torpedoes because the American torpedoes basically still didn't work in 1942. Which raises the question, was 14 Sqn using British or American torpedoes? If the latter, it seems like that might have been a useful innovation to pass on to the several USAAF B-26 units which came after Torch.

14 squadron used British torpedoes. Photos here. Note the length to diameter of the torpedoes. The US Mk.13 as short and fat relatively speaking. Note also the British Monoplane Air Tail at the attend of the torpedo.

RAF B-26 Marauders 14 Squadron "Dominion Triumph" "Dominion Revenge"- Marauder Mk.I in RAF service

based on Tony O Toole's 'Commonwealth Marauders' in SAM November 2015 and Mike Napier's "Winged Crusaders" history of 14 Squadron. Cheers...

falkeeinsgreatplanes.blogspot.com

The US B-26 units in the Med were never intended for the anti-shipping role.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The accuracy of dive bombing has been greatly exaggerated. Pinpoint accuracy was not possible. Here's is what the US navy said about it. Note that a 30 feet circle is a much bigger. target than a tank.

View attachment 703052
View attachment 703053

View attachment 703054

Even assuming that the Stuka was twice as accurate as the SB2C hundreds of bombs would be required to take out a gun emplacement let alone a tank.

I believe I posted this paper before but here it is again.

I think this is worthy of further discussion and I wouldn't call this the last word either.

The accuracy of dive bombing, and more broadly the accuracy of air strikes and overall effectiveness of close air support in WW2 (including bombing, strafing, rockets, incendiaries, and 'other') are a major subject which needs clarification. I think it's one of those things which has gone from a little too cheerful an assessment to a little too pessimistic.

There is a good thread on dive bombing accuracy in this very forum, here. Probably one of many but this one has quite a few useful data points.

The RN Carrier HMS Illustrious was 740 feet long and 95 feet wide. On 10 January 1941, it was attacked by between 24-36 Stukas, and hit eight times (5 x 1000 lb bombs and 3 x 500 lb bombs). Amazingly that tough ship survived the attack. This is a moving target with pretty good AA defenses (apparently they shot down some of the Stukas in the attack).

If an enemy armored column is attacking your forces, or if your armored column faces a line of fortified defensive positions, and you hit them by that number of bombs within a 100 foot wide by 750 foot long rectangle, it's a fair bet you are going to cause some serious havoc. And that is one strike mission. During large battles there were enough aircraft for multiple strikes, and the same unit sometimes attacked multiple times per day. Strikes like this, when they worked, could and did make a difference in the outcomes of battles.

With bombing in general during WW2, the accuracy was widely variant. Level bombing often failed to hit anything within hundreds of yards or sometimes even miles of the target. Later in the war using a Norden bomb sight from medium to high altitude they got it to around 400 meters. At least in testing.

The most accurate dive bombers like the Stuka had a CEP of around 25 -50 meters. That's 50% of bombs falling within the target area. Some other dive bombers that did true high angle dive bombing had close to that, others were as much as 50 -100 meters. Fighter bombers were in that same range, usually (50-100 meters). A CEP of 25 -50 meters is pretty good, compared to about 5-30 meters for JDAM and 3-25 meters for SVP-24. One analysis of Marine Corps air strikes in 1944 showed a CEP of 175' for SBD bombers and 195' for F4U fighter bombers.

But training mattered a lot. We know that in WW2 US Navy SBD pilots hit ships much more often than USMC pilots, who did not have the same rigorous training.

The Stuka had the automatic pullout feature, making it easier to use for less trained pilots, and it could dive at a true 90 degree angle, making it more accurate. Pilot quality for the Germans and also the Japanese was generally very high in the early war. Later in the war this diminished. Improved AA defenses also made dive bombing more dangerous, and meanwhile pilot quality was declining. Ultimately Allied fighters spelled doom for the slow Stuka.

A US 500 lb bomb had 262 lbs of explosive, a 1,000 lb bomb had 530 lbs. By comparison, a 105mm artillery shell had 5 lbs of explosive. So one 1,000 lb bomb is the equivalent of over a hundred 105mm shells. Imagine a hundred 105mm shells landing inside a 50 meter radius. That's a problem.

Destruction radius for a 500 lb bomb is estimated at 20 meters, 45 meters for damage. For a 1,000 lb it's 33/ 72.

So if you have a CEP of say, 50 meters, and you drop 24 bombs, 12 of them probably hit within 50 meters. That doesn't leave much room to hide inside that circle.

Of course that is the optimal conditions. There was and is a major random element in war. Even today with drones and high tech sensors and satelite data and precision guided munitions, finding the right target isn't by any means guaranteed. Friendly fire is still an issue too, and that was definitely a thing in WW2. But when everything worked, and they had a little luck, I believe CAS was extremely effective. Dive bombers even more so but the life expectancy of the (probably) most effective one, the Stuka, was limited.

 

[Shortround6]

V-1710-C (includes the -33) "These engines received heavier crankcases, a stronger crankshaft, SAE #50 propeller shaft, and Bendix pressure carburetors" I think this version still had the 'plain' crankshaft.
V-1710-F / F3R (includes the -39) "These engines had either a six or twelve weight crankshaft, revised vibration dampeners that combined to allow higher engine speeds, SAE #50 propeller shaft, and higher horsepower ratings." I think this was the 'shot peened' crank shaft
V-1710 / F4R (includes the -73) these got the Indium plated silver / lead bearings and the nitrided crank shaft.

There is some dispute as to which -33 engines got which improvements. This is not really helped by noting that the US got -33 engines and the French, British and Chinese did not.
They got V-1710-C-15s. which had the same power ratings but were not always identical engines. Most or all of the C-15/-33 engines started with the light 6 counter weight crankshafts.
This should be the plain steel one? The US -33 engines got the heavier crankcases and an upgraded crankshaft, often the description does not say what the improvement/s to the crankshaft were. Which Tomahawks got what may be a matter of dispute. I don't know if late production Tomahawks got the better parts or if Allison maintained two production lines using different crankcases and crankshafts.

When you get to the F3R (and the E equivalents) you had the heavy 6 counter weight cranks and they were shot-peened. Unfortunately the dates improvements were introduced seems to have slipped by. They simply note that the nitrided crankshafts showed up in the spring of 1942. Two were used in the V-3420-9 type test and as a result of it's successful completion of the test the nitrided crankshafts were approved for use in both the 12 cylinder and 24 cylinder engines. They don't narrow it down to month. Nitrided crankshafts may have been being put into aircraft in the "summer" of 1942? again, pinning down to June or August doesn't seem to happen in the book. OK'ed for production, assembled into completed engines and then installed in airframes in a different factory are 3 different points in time.

The descriptions for the F20, F21 and F-26 engines make no mention of the the type of crankshaft and neither do the descriptions of the P-38 engines.

My understanding is that the later V-1710s (midway through F3R production?) all got the 12 weight crank shafts as well, which worked better at higher RPM.

The 12 counter weight crankshafts showed up on the F31R engines (-115) on the last batch of P-40Ns , the P-40N-40 block.
The 12 counter weight crank weighed 27lbs more than the "late" 6 counter weight crank.

 

[Mike Williams]

Not found anything in the ORBs specifically that states the aircraft were being over boosted or being set at 60 plus ", nor could I find anything in what limited engineering details I have saying engines were being set or allowed to go to 60 plus in a official capacity.

Also found some other information from Jan 42 of a Pilot max boosting an aircraft, use of 52" to disengage combat in Mar 42, grounding an entire Squadron for over boost checks in early April 1942, as well as many other occasions of over boosting (where it's stated in " (such as "I used 52" of boost to disengage" etc) or just stated as Max Boost/Over boost what ever that is. One particular entry from a diary stated the Pilot eased the Throttle to 54" (Oct 1942) - how does one ease the throttle to 54" - what was he at before???, so certainly the boosts used were well up there.

Engine failures and engine changes were really a thing in North Africa, bearing failures and rod failures being the most common, sometimes the aircraft recovered to an airfield, sometimes not and crashed..........a sample squadron shows that engine failures or engine replacements for the months of Mar/Aug amount to 21 occasions, not including the number of sorties lost for engine issues. Between the use of boost over the recommended amount, and the environmental factors, engines didn't last long, and even rebuilt ones were poor at times (badly rebuilt)

Buz

Hi Buz, I just found this report that mentions overboosting. The P-40 throttle setup & boost control must have somehow allowed the specified boost limits to be exceeded.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So if you have a CEP of say, 50 meters, and you drop 24 bombs, 12 of them probably hit within 50 meters. That doesn't leave much room to hide inside that circle.

I.e. twelve 1,000 lb bombs is equivalent of 1,200 x 105mm shells landing inside 50 meters. If it's 500 lb bombs it's about half that (roughly 600). Yikes.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Hi Buz, I just found this report that mentions overboosting. The P-40 throttle setup & boost control must have somehow allowed the specified boost limits to be exceeded.

View attachment 703066

great find!

 

[Shortround6]

Hi Buz, I just found this report that mentions overboosting. The P-40 throttle setup & boost control must have somehow allowed the specified boost limits to be exceeded.

yes and no
The Tomahawks and early Kittyhawks (P-40D &E) had no boost regulators and the pilot could do pretty much whatever he wanted. However this made for more work load in the cockpit and over boosting by accident when descending/diving.
The P-40Fs came with automatic boost control (the British had it before WW I started) and the P-40Ks with -73 engines also had automatic boost control.
Not saying that unit mechanics didn't "adjust" things to other than factory specs but unless the tampering was changed back anybody investigating a damaged engine should have seen it. There was no "button" to push like Spitfires or Hurricanes. US planes often had thin piece of safety wire fastened across the throttle gate that would be broken if the throttle was pushed too far. All that told the mechanics and engineering officer was that over boost had been used, not how much or how long.

 

[Shortround6]

Later P-40s went through several different throttle controls to reduce the work load in the cockpit. How easy it was to get around them and use unauthorized levels of boost I don't know. It may be as simple as moving a couple of lock nuts on a threaded shaft that limited the travel.
However you had better be sure the engine will deliver the right amount of fuel at high boost settings.
And if your re-jet the carb to flow 30-40 % more fuel under high boost you may or may not be using more fuel at cruise?

 

[33k in the air]

I later watched the video interview and summarized the points made by the historian Mike Bechtold in post 195, including the point he made about the original air commander in the Western Desert, Raymond Collishaw, a 60 victory WW 1 ace. I didn't realize Collishaw was even Canadian until you pointed it out as a way of casting aspersions.

I did. My ears perked up while watching that video because I recognized the name from an old book I had on Canadian WWI flying aces. His aerial tally of victories was actually 68 — for some reason the 8 balloons he shot down are often not included in his victories, even though balloons are counted in the scores of other WWI aces. That 68 total makes Collishaw the fourth-highest scoring ace of the war.

Collishaw led a life during and between the wars that would make any adventurer envious.

 

[Buz101]

It seems like Allison was doing the refit program in 1940 and finished it in early 1941. 277 (?)engines refitted/rebuilt, it was done at the factory.
It also appears that it was done to US Army engines only and only the -33 engines. Late production -33 engines and ALL -39s had the improved parts.
However there is no mention of the British Tomahawks getting any of their engines rebuilt or any modifications to their engines.
AVG engines are in a different catagory, they were neither US engines or British engines. While it is true they were made out of "rejected" parts, in many ways they were actually hand built engines with parts brought up to specifications with inserts for threaded holes to repair thread damage or crank bearings plated and reground to bring them to tolerance.
The engines were not assembled using poorly fitted parts.
Where the AVG engines fell in the production que may affect which parts they got, but it is quite possible they got some of the old crankcases.

BUT, each engine had to be run on a test stand for the standard number of run-in hours, disassembles (at least partially) reassembled, and then packed and shipped to Curtiss or sent out as spares.

Shrotround6

Concur a lot of the early -33 engines were modified, easy to tell as their serial numbers tell you that they were (their serials end in M, I have example serials if needed). Concur there's no record of the British engines being rebuilt, these were supplied as built, and only rebuilt as required, either when damaged, or if (amazingly) they ever got to 200 hours (number of hours later increased). You'll also find many other engines were modified or even changed, a number of -35 engines were rebuilt as -63 (their type over stamped with the -63), or modified (both -73 and -81 have serials ending in M for Modified).

AVG engines, as you state, were different however only 50 were. The first engines supplied (with airframes) were British (their serials confirm this), its the extra 50 V-1710C-15A's (British engines were V-1710C-15) that were the hand built ones. The C-15A's only have the Allison engine number on them, no FY USAAF number, nor a British AM A. series number, so if you have a serial number it tells you the engine, C-15A's were late 29XX to 3XXX (Allision Number)

If all that interested in Allison engines, the British failed a number of Allision engines late in 1941 for defects, so much so they were sent back to Allision for repair and rebuild, this affected E4 (V-1710-35's) and F3R (-39) engines for the Airacobra I's and Kittyhawk I's, maybe the ramp up in engine production caused this - or the change in parts/bearings?. It was such an issue that a number of quality control engines were selected and tested by the Air Ministry. I'll check and see if they were defected for any particular reason, but effected quite a number (all numbers in the 5XXX and 6XXX Allision serials).

Buz

 

[Buz101]

There were several batches of strengthening improvements to the V-1710

V-1710-C (includes the -33) "These engines received heavier crankcases, a stronger crankshaft, SAE #50 propeller shaft, and Bendix pressure carburetors" I think this version still had the 'plain' crankshaft.
V-1710-F / F3R (includes the -39) "These engines had either a six or twelve weight crankshaft, revised vibration dampeners that combined to allow higher engine speeds, SAE #50 propeller shaft, and higher horsepower ratings." I think this was the 'shot peened' crank shaft
V-1710 / F4R (includes the -73) these got the Indium plated silver / lead bearings and the nitrided crank shaft.

My understanding is that the later V-1710s (midway through F3R production?) all got the 12 weight crank shafts as well, which worked better at higher RPM.

Bill

Will confirm the F3R with the crankshafts, pretty sure the -39 got the silver/lead bearings as well (about halfway through their production run).

 

[Buz101]

Hi Buz, I just found this report that mentions overboosting. The P-40 throttle setup & boost control must have somehow allowed the specified boost limits to be exceeded.

View attachment 703066

Mike

That was one of those extra reports I was talking about that mentioned overboosting. Others were Pilots notes, Diary entries etc.

Buz

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I did. My ears perked up while watching that video because I recognized the name from an old book I had on Canadian WWI flying aces. His aerial tally of victories was actually 68 — for some reason the 8 balloons he shot down are often not included in his victories, even though balloons are counted in the scores of other WWI aces. That 68 total makes Collishaw the fourth-highest scoring ace of the war.

Collishaw led a life during and between the wars that would make any adventurer envious.

he seems like quite a character

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Mike

That was one of those extra reports I was talking about that mentioned overboosting. Others were Pilots notes, Diary entries etc.

Buz

Can we confirm that they were using Kittyhawk I or IA at this time? Wikipedia says they had Tomahawk IIB until May 1942 and then switched to Kittyhawk I, but sometimes that was a gradual or incremental process with some units.