Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
2SAAF at this time were on a mix of Kittyhawk I and Kittyhawk Ia (P-40E-1)'s. The change over was rapid in May 42, lasted about only a few days (they were given all the airframes from a previous Squadron that were sent back from the front and re-issued with Hurricanes - mentioned this Unit before)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.
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.
Note also the increase in Sqn size from the original 16 I.E and 2 I.R to 18 I.E and 3 I.R - this was likely due to most of the other squadron's converting to Kittyhawk II and Kittyhawk III allowing more Kittyhawk I's to be available for the remaining 3 SQN's. Mike PM sent.Additional to what Buz wrote, see the attached:
2SAAF at this time were on a mix of Kittyhawk I and Kittyhawk Ia (P-40E-1)'s. The change over was rapid in May 42, lasted about only a few days (they were given all the airframes from a previous Squadron that were sent back from the front and re-issued with Hurricanes - mentioned this Unit before)
Buz
Dug out my Vee's For Victory, Daniel Whitney.
Pg 124. Frank Losonsky, a crew chief for the 3rd Squadron, AVG, relates that, " the pilots naturally wanted lots of manifold pressure, but too much destroyed the engines, which were normally set to operate at 58 inHgA, the "take-off" position. The pilots wanted 62 inHgA, I recall we could make one small adjustment to improve engine performance. We could lengthen the "regulator-to-carburetor" rod a certain number of turns, supposedly to "correct small manifold pressures". This "unauthorized" adjustment increased the aircraft speed and performance, just a little." As well it should for as shown on the accompanying performance chart for the C-15 58 inHgA would allow 1600 bhp at up to about 1,700 feet when running at 3000 rpm. If the pilots were getting 62 inHgA they were doing it by running the engine at up to 3200 rpm, where about 1700 bhp would be available. It is very likely that these power levels were used at times, and seldom if ever officially acknowledged, In the heat of combat, and with the pilot's life in the balance, using the engine for all it was worth was acceptable. Even so, it appears that the engines took the abuse and continued to operate successfully.
Pg 152. The V-1710-73(F4R) was provided with an Automatic Manifold Pressure Regulator as well as incorporating a number of internal improvements allowing an increase in the take-off rating to 1325 bhp instead of the 1150 bhp available with the V-1710-39(F3R). […] The War Emergency Rating was increased to 1580 bhp at 60 inHgA. In the early days of the war, before the Army officially established WER ratings, V-1710's in the combat theaters were often being overboosted. Allison field representatives reported cases where V-1710-73's were routinely operated at 66 inHgA in combat, and one representative in Australia noted cases where 70 inHgA were being used on P-40K and P-39D/K/L aircraft. Such indications show that the engines were being greatly abused. At 3000 rpm and at sea level the engine was only capable of about 62 inHgA at which point it would be producing 1760 bhp. Achieving 66 inches would have required running the engine to at least 3200 rpm, and 70 inches would have meant at lease 3400 rpm. While the engine was capable of safely exceeding 4000 rpm at this point in its development, the valve springs and/or fuel Grade were probably acting as the power limiters. Later models used stiffer springs and higher grade fuel when 60-65 inHgA was to be exceeded.
Pg 165. With the introduction to combat, pilots were pushing their engines to the limits. Since few of these early installations utilized manifold pressure regulators it was easy for British pilots to pull more than "rated" power. The consequence of unconstrained operation was a serious possibility of engine damage or reduced reliability. The experience of British pilots was that many had pulled 50-56 inHgA (45 inHgA was the handbook maximum for Military power) from their F-3R's for 5 to 15 minutes while over enemy territory without trouble. As U.S. pilots entered the combat theaters, they were asking for authorization to use the same capability from the Allisons. The U.S. Government did not allow "Combat" power ratings until December 1942, until the war was a year along.
As an interesting aside, a USAAF memo dated 26 August 1943 on British Army Cooperation Tactical Employment of the Mustang I (P-51) noted:
33. This aircraft is powered with the Allison 1710-39 engine having a rated power of 1150 H.P. at 3000 R.P.M. and 44" Hg. at 12,000 ft. The engine was originally equipped with an automatic boost control limiting the manifold pressure at the lower altitudes to 44". The British remove this so as to get the vastly increased performance at lower altitudes thru the judicious use of over-boost. As has been mentioned before, they have had exceptionally good service out of these engines and due to its smoothness at low RPM's, they are able to operate it so as to obtain a remarkably low fuel consumption giving them an operational range greater than any single engine fighter they possess (the fact that the Merlin engine will not run well below 1600 prevents them from obtaining an equivalent low fuel consumption and therefore limits its usefulness for similar operations).
36. In view of the British operation and the fact that we have an approved war emergency rating on the 1710-39 engine of 56", it is suggested that immediate steps be taken to remove the automatic boost controls from our P-51 airplanes in this theatre and that the instrument dials be marked with the proper lights. The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72" Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines. According to them, the Allison is averaging 1500 hours between bearing failures as compared to 500 to 600 hours for the Merlin. The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined.
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.
That assumes the pilot with the "burnt out engine" makes it back to a friendly field. If he doesn't???though a prematurely burnt out engine is still better than losing a pilot and the whole aircraft.
Trying to get 72" Hg out of P-40 at Sea Level may call for extraordinary measures, since you are flying at around 30mph slower (assuming you get the P-40 to run into the mid/hi 60in range).The British have operated at full throttle at sea level (72" Hg) for as much as 20 min. at a time without hurting the engines.
The Allison, they have found, will drag them home even with the bearing ruined.
That assumes the pilot with the "burnt out engine" makes it back to a friendly field. If he doesn't???
I would also note that RAM effect is both speed and altitude dependent. In level speed they sort of cancel each other out.
The Problem is what happens at less than full speed. Test with a P-40K equipped with a -81 engine (prototype for the P-40N).
2960 ft speed 344mph with 57in MAP with 1415hp (engine is being throttled).
10550ft speed 378mph with 57 in MAP with 1480hp (engine is wide open)
British Mustang II with engine with 9.60 gears.
10,000ft speed 409mph with 60in MAP. power not given but engine was wide open.
Extra 30mph is worth ??
Going back to the P-40 and climbing at 174mph wide open throttle (57in) gave 1480hp at 8,000ft.
Trying to get 72" Hg out of P-40 at Sea Level may call for extraordinary measures, since you are flying at around 30mph slower (assuming you get the P-40 to run into the mid/hi 60in range).
Now the bit about not hurting the engines. Basically that means that the pilots that made it home hadn't hurt their engines (?) although how that squares with
Dragging them home with the bearing ruined is not hurting the engines? The engines that ruined their engines were being over boosted on that flight or had never been over boosted?
BTW, plenty of Allisons were ruined by over boosting or detonation in P-38s. If you are flying at high speed at sea level and there is a very loud bang from the engine compartment and parts exit the engine (and the aircraft) at high speed the pilot is probably not going to make it home to report in. Broken connecting rods and broken/holed pistons will do that.
With P-38s a number of them came home with one engine running so the mechanics, engineering officers and sometimes Allison/Lockheed tech support could try to figure out what happened. P-40s and Mustangs don't fly all that well when the engines stop running.
Different Cause but one P-38 squadron (not group but one Squadron) the 459th operating out of India loosing 11 right engines for every left hand engine they lost.
They found the problem (in the linkages) but if you are not getting back engines with a certain type of failure on single engine planes it can take a while to figure out what is going on.
The AVG found that planes would return after being over boosted but would sometimes fail on the next flight. The older crankshafts had a much shorter fatigue life but it took a while to put it together.
So what happened to the step by step instructions to look up the 3 RAAF squadron records about 8 February 1942? The way it says landed, not crash landed, other people have looked at the page, please show where it says crash landed. Was the look up sacrificed for speed, given the reply took under an hour to write, less two other replies and notification time? By the away I do not get outraged, I just move the topic to comedy relief time.Aircraft crash landed with "tail shot away" according to the historical record = Sinclair outraged = casts baseless aspersions on Kelso.... over and over and over again
Still do not get it, your idea of loss is something back flying in under 3 days.I see this as, as someone else accused me, 'equivocation' not actually admitting you were wrong.
Go back and read, you did not ask, you decided I did not have the book. Message 225 "Your assumption on error or conspiracy without even ever seeing the book seems very unfounded to me". Now this statement is supposed to be a question.I asked you if you had the book because it was hard to believe that someone who had it could draw the conclusions you have done.
Once again, it is your interpretation that is the main problem.Since we both agree that Shores is mostly accurate, why not just accept his records and move on?
Then stop doing it.Turgid grumbling, insults and accusations don't actually reveal anything or enlighten anybody.
The spreadsheet some days ago now, good to know none of that data is ruled pertinent, like shipping losses, RAF hours, losses and strengths. Glad to see your starting conclusion is the arbiter of whether data is pertinent or not.I'm glad you are finally starting to post some pertinent data... I think.
You may have upgraded your shoot the messenger weapon to a machine gun but are still missing. I like the way I am assumed to admit I am wrong, then not admit I am wrong, in each case whatever looks worse for me.So you admit you thought the video was biased because Canadian.
Kelso interpretation. Stop mistreating Shores.So far, Shores data is contested, chiefly by you, so it's been one step forward, two steps back.
We already know you are searching for what fits, rather than what happened. History by quotes is really good when you want to be selective.But quite a lot of other data has been posted in the thread which supports my point, especially the book excerpts.
Why bother, you started with a conclusion, saying now is the time to find the evidence is the wrong way around.On the contrary, I knew the M7 and 105mm howitzer were used in the battle. And I knew the M7 is far more effective than a 25 pounder. I have read that they played an important role, I'm looking forward to exploring the details of that, if we ever get that far.
It must be bad to look at it since you do not seem to be able to. At the moment it is another example of conclusion first, evidence maybe later.There are many examples of this in Shores, but I suspect when I post them I'll be accused of missing phantasms of minor damage to Axis planes that Shores missed, or baffling statements from the unit records which will be transformed into malfeasance by Shores or by myself... But the data is there if you can stand to look at it.
RAF losses in combat 26 to 31 May most were fighters apart from 1 Wellington per day 28 to 31 July, plus 2 damaged on both the 29th and 31st, and 1 Baltimore or Boston lost on the 29th. Casualties 26 to 31 May, page is hard to read, lost/damaged 1/1, 7/1, 7/0, 12/3, 16/0 and 17/2.So what is the ratio of lost Allied to lost Axis aircraft in that time period according to your count?
Battleaxe was in 1941, well before any Spitfires and P-40F were around. So the proof of the claims about Battleaxe in the video is the video and none of the number of books in your library backs the claim. So another conclusion first, evidence maybe later.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.
Your machine gun keeps jamming.I didn't realize Collishaw was even Canadian until you pointed it out as a way of casting aspersions.
Until your air power grows to the overwhelming superiority seen in the west in 1944/45. Then it gives all sorts of benefits.The consensus seems to be that keeping an 'air umbrella' over the ground forces was wasteful of resources and ineffective.
Actually it is not a fair bet, troops in front line positions are dug in, meaning a near miss usually does little material damage. The prolonged attacks on Bir Hacheim shows that, the best of the attacks were well co-ordinated with the ground troops helping the assault as a form of artillery barrage rather than actual damage, like the barrage itself.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.
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.
The 105mm HE shell came in at 33 pounds, or 30 to 31 shells per 1,000 pounds, 12,000 pounds is 364 shells in round terms, but the effect a given weight of bombs on above ground structures is likely to be more than the equivalent weight of shells because the average bomb carries a higher percentage of explosive, the 105mm shell had 4.8 pounds of TNT, under 15%. British GP bombs around 30% explosive, MC around 50%, HC around 70%. Of course the more things you launch at the enemy the more you are likely to hit and an artillery shell is quite capable of destroying an enemy artillery piece with a direct hit, a 500 pound bomb tends to over destroy it. While the artillery sprays more shrapnel around than a bomb, makes air bursts rather effective.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.
I made it 93 in Egypt by the time of Second El Alamein, but we won't argue about the odd 3! These had begun to arrive at Suez on 3 Sept 1942 but then needed modified to meet British requirements e.g. fitting British No.19 radio sets, new sandshields and rails for Sunshield disguises (to allow camouflage as a truck). 24 were then used to equip 11 RHA by El Alamein (3 batteries each of 2 troops with 4 Priests per troop). One battery was attached to each of the 3 armoured regiments in 2nd Armoured Brigade, 1st Armoured Div. They carried out their first shoot on 24 Oct.There were 90 M7 Priests available at Alamein although I haven't seen much detail as to use except one reference to 1st Armoured
vehicles providing fire support at the Snipe outpost. Unfortunately they mostly fired into the British positions on that occasion - they
were not the only ones during the battle as exact locations of units was an ongoing problem (lack of landmarks etc ?).
So what happened to the step by step instructions to look up the 3 RAAF squadron records about 8 February 1942? The way it says landed, not crash landed, other people have looked at the page, please show where it says crash landed. Was the look up sacrificed for speed, given the reply took under an hour to write, less two other replies and notification time? By the away I do not get outraged, I just move the topic to comedy relief time.
Still do not get it, your idea of loss is something back flying in under 3 days.
Go back and read, you did not ask, you decided I did not have the book. Message 225 "Your assumption on error or conspiracy without even ever seeing the book seems very unfounded to me". Now this statement is supposed to be a question.
Once again, it is your interpretation that is the main problem.
The spreadsheet some days ago now, good to know none of that data is ruled pertinent, like shipping losses, RAF hours, losses and strengths. Glad to see your starting conclusion is the arbiter of whether data is pertinent or not.
You may have upgraded your shoot the messenger weapon to a machine gun but are still missing. I like the way I am assumed to admit I am wrong, then not admit I am wrong, in each case whatever looks worse for me.
Kelso interpretation. Stop mistreating Shores.
We already know you are searching for what fits, rather than what happened. History by quotes is really good when you want to be selective.
Why bother, you started with a conclusion, saying now is the time to find the evidence is the wrong way around.
Where is your count of the number of times "often" the allied escorts were annihilated forcing the bombers to eject their bombs? Is everything to do with a response annihilated?
It must be bad to look at it since you do not seem to be able to. At the moment it is another example of conclusion first, evidence maybe later.
RAF losses in combat 26 to 31 May most were fighters apart from 1 Wellington per day 28 to 31 July, plus 2 damaged on both the 29th and 31st, and 1 Baltimore or Boston lost on the 29th. Casualties 26 to 31 May, page is hard to read, lost/damaged 1/1, 7/1, 7/0, 12/3, 16/0 and 17/2.
RAF losses in combat 27 to 31 July, 9 fighters plus 2 damaged, 4 light bombers plus 1 damaged, 7 medium bombers plus 1 damaged, 1 PRU fighter lost, 2 light twin engine reconnaissance lost. Casualties 27 to 31 July, lost/damaged 11/1, 5/0, 2/0, 2/3 and 3/0. But the data this supplements is in the spreadsheet I posted, ruled non pertinent.
So which of you books supports the claim the air force saved the ground forces in Battleaxe from total annihilation?
Battleaxe was in 1941, well before any Spitfires and P-40F were around. So the proof of the claims about Battleaxe in the video is the video and none of the number of books in your library backs the claim. So another conclusion first, evidence maybe later.
Your machine gun keeps jamming.
Actually it is not a fair bet, troops in front line positions are dug in, meaning a near miss usually does little material damage. The prolonged attacks on Bir Hacheim shows that, the best of the attacks were well co-ordinated with the ground troops helping the assault as a form of artillery barrage rather than actual damage, like the barrage itself.
The 105mm HE shell came in at 33 pounds, or 30 to 31 shells per 1,000 pounds, 12,000 pounds is 364 shells in round terms, but the effect a given weight of bombs on above ground structures is likely to be more than the equivalent weight of shells because the average bomb carries a higher percentage of explosive, the 105mm shell had 4.8 pounds of TNT, under 15%. British GP bombs around 30% explosive, MC around 50%, HC around 70%. Of course the more things you launch at the enemy the more you are likely to hit and an artillery shell is quite capable of destroying an enemy artillery piece with a direct hit, a 500 pound bomb tends to over destroy it. While the artillery sprays more shrapnel around than a bomb, makes air bursts rather effective.
Hi
Some extracts from E R Hooton's book 'Eagle in Flames, The Fall of the Luftwaffe', reference North Africa (and Med), first the end of 1941:
View attachment 702645
And 1942:
View attachment 702646
View attachment 702647
Mike
You are cherry picking your images. There are plenty of pictures of dug in 88s such as this one taken in the desert in November 1942My criteria was to include it as a loss if it 'crash landed', so if there is no corroborating evidence that that specific aircraft crash landed, then I'd say remove it from the loss list for that day. Since two different sources on this have been checked, I will concede Shores may have been wrong in that one case, pending further evidence.
I don't however believe it means the numbers or the overall point have changed.
If it did crash land, force land, or in any way stop flying as a result of enemy damage, then I would count it, just like any aircraft which went down due to a single bullet hole in the radiator. This counts as a real 'victory' in aerial combat. The amount of damage or how long it took to repair it are irrelevant for this criteria.
You can count up the losses however you want, but instead you mulishly dispute my criteria over and over and over and over.
You don't like my interpretation either, but your main problem is with Shores, as you claimed that he didn't list damage scored by the Allied pilots, you claim he called an aircraft crash landed when it just landed (which you may be right about), and you claimed that "tail shot off" is a lie or impossible (even though the nearly identical "tail shot away" turns out to be in the Allied records). One of these claims may be correct, one appears to be baseless, and one is directly contradicted though you haven't acknowledged it. I still trust Shores data more than yours mate.
I'll admit the mix of pointless squabbling, insults and obvious delusion makes your posts tiresome to read. And most of the data you posted I already had. I found the spreadsheet more useful but only to a point since it only included Allied losses.
Great! So we can admit that Shores is basically correct, the Axis took no losses on Feb 8, and we can rest assured that one of the Allied Kittyhawks had it's "tail shot off". I'm relieved, now we can move on to the next batch of loss records.
Who is 'We'? You sound like you are describing yourself mate. Take your own advice.
I'll post some examples. I predict, in advance, no matter how many I post you won't admit it, and the conversation will continue to descend into pointless bickering.
I posted February to May. You are posting two batches of 4 or 5 days? I don't see how this is supposed to advance the discussion in any way. I already have Shores for data, the point is to aggregate it. If you can't, then just stop griping and move on.
The claim is from the video, you seem mortally offended by the video, take it up with the historian in the video. I don't have an opinion on Battleaxe. Once again you are complaining about someone else's data to me, as if I'm the one who posted the video (hint - I'm not).
View attachment 703453
View attachment 703452
View attachment 703454
You can't really dig in an 88 mm Flak 18 type gun, they are a little too big, and the same goes for tanks, armored cars, trucks, prime movers, artillery pieces, and a lot of other larger crew served weapons. They can put some sandbags around it, but that is not going to protect from a 500 lb bomb within 20 meters.
In North Africa, it was not always possible to dig deep into the ground because the ground was often rock. Deep sand also posted it's own difficulties.
Air strikes tend to work best in coordination with ground troops, but assuming they targeted the right area (which can be a big 'if') then that number of strikes in a small area with 500-1000 lb bombs is going to wreak havoc on the ground forces. Even if they aren't all casualties, they are definitely going to be 'disrupted' which can then be exploited by friendly ground forces, and often makes the difference in the battle.
This, by the way, is the real reason why so much money, time, effort, blood, sweat and tears was put into the air war in the Western Desert, on both sides. Ultimately, the only thing that really matters is the effect of the aircraft on the ground war.
Well here is another case where you are clearly, factually wrong. I was comparing the amount of explosive in the 1,000 lb bomb (and 500 lb bomb) with the amount of explosive in a 105mm shell. Not the weight of the whole shell, which is pointless to measure.