Assumed inferiority of American fighters 1942/43

[Romantic Technofreak]

Hi friends,

I knew I would get some opposition when I called P-38/39/40 inferior in B-1´s "Why do you think the Luftwaffe failed" thread. But instead of answering there, I think it is better to open another topic for that. I am consciously going some risk now because I decided not to study and quote, but to argue from memory, so mistakes of my own are probable. We can have a "quotation battle" later!
And yes, I am still convinced that the mediocre results of American fightership in Northwest Africa on the turn of 1942/43 are not only due to unexperienced pilots and inadequate leadership, but also to technical inferiority of the machines themselves. OK, let´s go on:

1. The P-38 of that time was still plagued with teething troubles. Maybe the overall performance figures of this fighter were superior to the ones of the contemporary western-Axis fighters, but the Lightning still lacked reliability, especially at heights. In early 1943, the Lightning losses also over Northwest Europe were considerably high. The machine had to undergo changes and improvements to become the final unamiously appreciated double-fuselage champion that it was.

2. The P-39 was really inferior in the fighter role. In the Western theater, after early 1943 it was completely taken out of service, and its production went to the USSR. Even its successor P-63 was affected, as it did not become a regular fighter in the Western air forces.

3. The P-40 was considered having a "bad" kill to loss ratio. Whatever this means, by middle of 1943 the P-40´s concept had reached the end of its potential. I am not too much informed about the air war in the Mediterranean from summer 1943 on, but I think at this time the P-40 was already relegated to the second line. Also its successors XP-40Q, XP-60 and XP-72 were affected (by the way, they will become the victims of my next GOT article, as long as nobody utters another wish), as they were not taken into regular service by the USAAF (please leave discussion about these types to the coming GOT article).

Also let me add a personal sentence. It´s a bit picking to see if the least bit of criticism seems to run in to what I call "national resentiment". I have to state this towards our friend Ickysdad (the personal preference of our friend Lightning to "his" plane maybe something different), it happened before with Greg when I citicized the B-32 "Dominator", it happened before on other occasions with other persons from other countries. So please note when I criticise something within a well-defined theme belonging to a single country, this doesn´t mean I criticize the aviation of the country or the country as a whole. Now, beat me with facts!

Regards, RT

[Red Admiral]

"The day of 2 aug 1943 6 Mc 205V of 155° Gr. "Black Panthers" sub-unit of 51° St.Caccia "Black Cats" faced 24 NZ P40 and killed 11 of them"

"The 51st Stormo received their MC. 205 in April 1943 and on 4/8/43, 6 MC.205 attacked 20 P-38 and P-40s destroying 6 of the Allied fighters for the loss of only 1 MC.205."

[simon]

Where is this taken from out of interest?

Should hopefully go without saying that if these are claims or even confirmed kills for the Stormo in question they will almost certainly be exagerated (Happened across the board). If they are based on post-war analyis of confirmed kills and claims against actual unit losses then they are far more relevant.

[Red Admiral]

I'm not sure I do trust those sources entirely. I do have the official losses for Italian aircraft. The same figures for Allied ones would be appreciated. There are lots of notes in textbooks indicating that 51° had the best kill:loss ratio of Italian squadrons. Someone on another forum's father flew G.55, MC.205 and (sometimes)Re.2005 which is where I got those dates and losses from. Confirming them with another source is harder.

However, there isn't much doubt that the 5-series is better than the P-38/39/40. Faster, better maneuverability by far and a climb rate like a rocket, coupled with fairly experienced pilots.

[Dogwalker]

That story grew up over and over after the war, becoming something very different from the original one.
The story of the aerial battle of Cape Pula, as I know it, was reconstructed from US and Italian reports by the historician Andrea Concas and the journalist Andrea Piras.
The first thing to say is that there were not "5 series" fighters involved in the battle.
The italian squadron was formed by 4 Macchi C.202 (Marshall Ennio Tarantola, Marshall Pietro Bianchi, Sergeant Mugherli and Sergeant Santuccio), that were covering the tanker "Romagna" while it was approaching the port of Cagliari.
During the maneuver, the piots saw an explosion, and suddenly the ship caught fire.
Thinking of an attack by a submarine (really, the ship had encountered a wandering mine), they tried to sight the enemy unit, but,soonly, they lost contact with the C.202 of Sgt. Santuccio. So, they began to search for him too.
After few minutes of searching, the three remaining pilots sighted a floating Catalina, escorted by 14 P40F of the 325th FG. Thinking they had something to do with the missing of Sgt. Santuccio, M.ll Tarantola, the commander of the Formation, decided to attack.
What really happened to Sgt. Santuccio was that, searchig for the cause of the explosion of the Romagna, with a radio failure, he sighted the Catalina descending over the sea. Mismatching it for an Italian Cant Z.501 (that was often used for anti-sub missions), he approached it, and was suddenly attacked by the previously unsighted escort. However, he managed to escape, and, at the same time his companion were attacking the enemy formation, he was safely returning to the base to report the encounter.
In the meantime the battle raged over the floating seaplane, but without losses for both parts, until six P38 of the 49th Sq. 14 FG decided to join the party.
In the ensuing furball M.ll Tarantola managed first to strafe the Catalina, that immediately sunk, then he succeed to shot down the P40 of F/O McKeithen (KIA) (Sgt. Mugherli remembered, after the war, that he was nearly deafened by the cry of M.ll Tarantola, through the radio, when he finally got the P.40).
Even the USAF however had his moment, when Lt. Carrol S.Knott, of the 49th Sq. shot down and killed M.ll Pietro Bianchi.
Running out of ammunitions (and men) Tarantola decided to withdraw. The two remaining C.202 succeded to leave the P40s on the site, but were pursued by the faster P38s, so, they managed to drive them over the AA postation of Cape Teulada. The artillerymen claimed an (unmatched) victory over the lightnings, the P38s however decided to quit.

Excuse me for my bad english. It's terrible for me to write long texts.[xx(]

[GregP]

Hi RT,

The P-38 DID have some developmental issues that were worked out later. It turned into a great figher.

The P-39 was maligned for no good reason. Without the supercharger it was deisgned for, it was a low to medium altutude fighter and was pretty good in that realm. At high altitude it was doomed by the decision to delete the supercharger (an arbitrary decision by the war acquisition board). In this case, that means the P-39 was pretty good below 15,000 feet ... which means it was not too good in Europe.

At 10,000 feet the P-39 was deadly and did a VERY good job. Ask the Soviet Union ... Ivan Kozhbub shot down 62 planes and is the top scoring ace for the Allies, some in P-39's. Most were in La-5s but some were in P-39s.

The P-40 was maligned by people who don't fly. It has many great characteristics, but one of them is not high top speed. Nevertheless, it flies and fights very well. Let's remember that it fought mainly against the Japanese Zero.

When it encountered the Germans it didn't do too badly, and it finished with a decent kill-to-loss ratio. I do not have my references right now, but seem to remember something like 3-to-1 overall. That ain't too bad for a supposedly bad fighter.

The Spitfire didn't do too well against Zeros either as I recall. If I am right, it was about as good as a P-40, maybe not.

The best fighter against the Zero seems to have been the Grumman F6-F Hellcat. Makes sense because the Zero was a Japanese NAVAL fighter. If I am not mistaken it had a kill to loss ratio of 19-to-1, the best of all times until the F-15 Eagle. I do not know the ratios for Axis aircraft but would love to find a source for them.

The Bf 109 never got a chance against the Zero since they were on the same side, but I doubt it would fare very well against the Zero. Look at the wing loading and roll rates.

In retrospect, the losses seem to have been more pilot dependent than aircraft dependent.

As for the P-38, it was at the top of its game at the end of WWII and was as good as anything out there. Ask anyone who flew a P-38L 60 years ago.

I have and it was. In fact, the P-38L could almost turn with a late-model Zero.

RT: Overall, you are correct. They weren't the best fighters when viewed historically in light of the facts. The record speaks for itself. I just think the circumstances of their employment and design decisions need to be considered when thinking about the aircraft.

The P-38L with a competent pilot aboard at the end of the war was as good as any plane in the world ... short of jets, and was better if you count which type won more battles, jets or piston. The piston guys won hands down, by a large margin.

Thanks for the CAC-15 topic .. it was very good!

[i16stealth]

quote:Originally posted by GregP


At 10,000 feet the P-39 was deadly and did a VERY good job. Ask the Soviet Union ... Ivan Kozhbub shot down 62 planes and is the top scoring ace for the Allies, some in P-39's. Most were in La-5s but some were in P-39s.


Greg, Ivan Kozhedub never flew P-39! You meant Alexander Pokrishkin,I suppose.

[simon]

The Japanese did test a Bf109E against an A6M2 though, perhaps national pride and politics came into it but they apparently disliked the Messerschmitt due to its relative lack of manouevrability.

[Mark J]

Dogwalker, your English is coming through loud and clear, well done :)

Yes Greg, I agree with you about the P-40. It's only real fault, to me anyway, was it's poor altitude performance. It could dogfight very well and I'll repeat a point I've raised before.
Pilots of RNZAF P-40's, on occasion, managed to dogfight with A6M Zeros and were successful, during 1943, while flying from Henderson field, Guadalcanal (spelling)[:I]. This was observed by (grateful) Liberator crews.

The RNZAF pilots enjoyed lenghy training periods, were well practised with their aircraft and so had a higher survivability rate, even with aircraft that other airforces were replacing.

I understand most of the pilots sent to the UK from 1942 on, were the better trained, while other theaters, especially North Africa, recieved pilots who may have had their training rushed a little to fill squadrons. Can anybody elaborate on that point?

The Spitfires that initially faced the Zeros, were piloted by ex BoB vets and new men straight from flying schools. Some had a wealth of experiance and could fly but others were not so good and they got hammered by different tactics. That later changed.

The P-40E and the Mk V Spitfire were very close in performance, up until a little over 15000ft, above that the Spitfire's supercharged Merlin gave it the edge. The Mk VIII Spitfire later addressed the balance with speed. (against the Japanese fighters)

The Hellcat was indeed a very good naval plane but it also had very good pilots who had learn't their trade from men who had devised tactics to defeat the agile Zeros.

My point RT, is that I believe it was more of a pilot experiance fault rather than a fault with the aircraft. (pilot courage is not in question or in doubt) The P-38 had a few mechanical faults but they were still lethal and so too the P-39 and P-40

cheers

[Double T]

RoTech:
I do appreciate any effort to breath some life into these boards...
(Big Smile)

I really can't agree with your across-the-board statement concerning the inferiority of the P-38, P-39 and P-40. Now, we've had many discussions on these aircraft, and GregP has pretty well covered the meat of the issue(s) as relates to these designs.
I will try to add a few snippets without stumbling over what GregP has already posted...

The original Lockheed P-38 was concieved as an interceptor to be bought in small numbers. As such, it really didn't easily lend itself to mass-production. The early copies were hand-built with cooling ductwork running inside the leading edges of each wing. They proved quite troublesome--as did the engines--and when the demands for LOTS of P-38s came, Lockheed made modifications to the design while airframes were literally moving down the production-line.
The P-38 could have had compressibility-flaps much earlier, and thus would have been able to dive with an Me109. The kits were packed on a C-47 which was then shot down by a British fighter over the channel. All the compressibility kits were lost. Lockheed figured out the problem and issued a fix. Fate intervened, and it late in coming as a result.

With that said, I'll never believe the P-38 was inferior to anything it shared the skies with. It was a leading-edge design at the beginning of the war, and a pinnacle of piston-engine technology by wars' end.

The P-39 was hamstrung by design deletions and--I believe--was also seen as an interceptor in the spirit of the P-38. It also was an "outside the box" design... with it's engine mounted behind the pilot, heavy armament to attack bombers, etc. Once the supercharger was deleted, it became a totally different beast, as GregP stated. It was fearsome at low altitudes, and it found it's niche in ground support and lower-level work with Allied Forces, and was effective when used as such.

I've heard people relate here as to the wonderful flying characteristics of the P-40. While it wasn't the most leading-edge design, it had a reputation as a rugged, well-balanced airframe with good armament. They mixed it up with the best in most-all theatres of combat.

Tim

[Ricky]

To summarise all that is written above:

The P-38 was essentially a good design, and one that would become an excellent plane, but the examples actually in service in 1942/43 had some serious issues

The P-39 was a good low-level fighter employed in a theatre where good high-level performance was a must, and its contemporaries could handle both high- and low-level missions. It could have been a great all-rounder, but did not have the required turbocharger.

The P-40 was a good low-level fighter employed in a theatre where good high-level performance was a must, and its contemporaries could handle both high- and low-level missions.

A summary would be that while the designs had great niche performance or great potential, the planes in use in the ETO in 1942/43 were not as suitable as their contemporaries.

Is that about right?

[Lightning]

Hi RT,

First of all, I think your decision to take this controversy out of the "Why Do You Think The Luftwaffe Failed...?" discussion and institute it as a new topic was a very good idea. Too many times the original theme of a great topic is so far diverged from that it becomes unrecognizable.

Now, quoting you:
quote:. The P-38 of that time was still plagued with teething troubles. Maybe the overall performance figures of this fighter were superior to the ones of the contemporary western-Axis fighters, but the Lightning still lacked reliability, especially at heights.

The problems to which you refer existed in the early P-38s, but not in North Africa. The engine problems were probably due to incompatible aviation fuel in use in Britain at the time. They also were only encountered at high altitude in the cold, wet Northern European winter weather. Such conditions were not encountered in the hot, dry climate of the North African desert. And most of the aerial fighting was done at relatively low altitude. The fuel used was also from different sources than that in Britain.

The other serious early problem with the Lightning was that of compressibility. Again, this was mostly a high-altitude problem due to the lower speed of sound (Mach 1) at those levels. As altitude decreases from 40,000 feet to sea level, Mach 1 increases from about 660 mph to about 760 mph--a difference of 100 mph! The P-38 (especially the "F" and "G" models used in North Africa) rarely reached their critical Mach number at low altitude, so this was not a real problem over the desert at relatively low level.

The reliability of the Allison V-1710 engine was as good, and probably even better, than that of the Merlin at low altitude. From what I have read, the mean-time-between-failures (MTBF) was greater for the Allison than for the Merlin under those conditions.

The fact that the Lightning had to fight below its optimum altitude in North Africa was the only real advantage the Me 109 had--It's maneuverability down low was somewhat better than that of the early P-38's.

I stand by my earlier statement that the problems that the P-38 had in North Africa were due to lack of pilot experience, to the use of outmoded tactics and formations, and to ineffective leadership--not to shortcomings in the airplane.

Regards,
Lightning

[Double T]

I would also add--to complement Lightning's comments about the weather-conditions over Europe--the P-38 was percieved differently depending on the theatre of operation.
While it's reception over Europe might have been "cool" it was the hottest airplane in the sky at that time during the Pacific campaign. They loved the Lightning, and wanted as many as they could put their hands' on.
Lightnings' point about the av-gas available to units in Europe being different--worse--than that in North africa is also an interesting consideration.
I would also agree that much of the (un-deserved) reputation in the mind of fresh pilots related to their fears of loosing an engine at take-off. I daresay if they lost an engine in the course of a mission... they were quite delighted to have that second engine to get them back home.

Tim

[GregP]

According to a former P-38 pilot I talked with, the main problem with the P-38 in Europe, at least as far as the aircrew were concerned, was the poor cabin heater.

At one point, Lockheed sent Tony Levier to England to demonstrate the P-38 to the combat squadrons. After watching him do his thing, it was related to me that one P-38 pilot commented something to the effect that Tony put on a very good show, but the speaker wanted to see him do it after 5 hours at 30,000 feet! He'd be frozen!

[Lightning]

Hi Greg,

Quoting you:
quote:
At one point, Lockheed sent Tony Levier to England to demonstrate the P-38 to the combat squadrons. After watching him do his thing, it was related to me that one P-38 pilot commented something to the effect that Tony put on a very good show, but the speaker wanted to see him do it after 5 hours at 30,000 feet! He'd be frozen!

That heater (or lack thereof) problem you refer to was a very bad problem in the earlier variants of the P-38. Although it was not performance-related, it might as well have been. To lower the effectiveness of the pilot is to lower the effectiveness of the plane.

The quoted comment by the pilot referred to in your posting would have been completely justified except for one thing:

The Lightning that Tony LeVier demonstrated was a P-38J, and the heating problem had been corrected in that model.

Regards,
Lightning

[JoeB]

quote:Originally posted by GregP



When it encountered the Germans it didn't do too badly, and it finished with a decent kill-to-loss ratio. I do not have my references right now, but seem to remember something like 3-to-1 overall. That ain't too bad for a supposedly bad fighter.

The most successful USAAF P-40 unit in MTO, 325th FG, while they flew it (later flew P-47&51) *claimed* a 3+:1 ratio v mixed German/Italian opposition. Like the statement above about the Macchi (even 205, or much more common 202), you can't make good conclusions from claims. I don't know of a definitive study of the 325th's combats from both sides but some of their high claim days were very overstated according to Italo-German sources is what I understand. For that portion of the war real enemy losses=40% of US claims was often typical in the Pacific, IOW only around parity for the best P-40 unit, perhaps less against just German fighters. Commonwealth P-40's overall scored pretty obviously less than parity against Bf109's in whole 41-43 period, the Germans were scoring a quite real ratio against them in Marseille's time in the Western Desert as mentioned on other threads. As usual, the pure performance of the plane doesn't necessarily explain any set % of such results.

Likewise I don't know many specific examples of Italian claims ca. 1943 v real enemy losses, but back in 40-41 v the Brits Italian claims were several to one overstated (and Brit claims against them pretty overstated as well at that time).

Joe

[GregP]

Hi Lightning!

Could very well have been a P-38J, I don't know .... just repeating what I heard; I was not there.

I know the P-38 heater was of great concern to European Lightning pilots, but exactly when it might have been fixed I am not aware.

I am aware that the P-38 at Tillamook in Oregon also has a weak heater since they told me that when I visited the museum. Tillamook is where Jeff Ethell was killed in a Lightning ... it was a fuel mamagement problem at low altitude and Jeff hit the trees before he could get the engines going again.

[Romantic Technofreak]

OK, friends, let´s open the "quotation battle"! I cite from "Fighters over Tunisia" from Christopher Shores, Hans Ring, William N. Hess, of course the German version "Tunesien 42/43. Luftkämpfe über Fels und Wüste", publishing house Motorbucgh Verlag, Stuttgart 1981. It´s a very detailed book, containg every single kill in that theater between November 8th, 1942, and May 13th, 1943, so you have to read more than 500 pages before you get any conclusion.

[u]P-38</u>

p. 526, by the authors:
"Probably the most controversially discussed airplane of the USAAF was the two-engined P-38. It delivered its best performance at bigger heights and differed this way from any other fighter flown in North Africa. At a height of 4,600 m, it reached a surprisingly high speed, and at climbing it left all other types far behind. At lower heights it was an easy prey for Axis fighters, especially when the opponent was an experienced pilot."

p. 539: Colonel E.C. Ethel, 1942 lieutenant at 48. Squadron, 14. Fighter Group:
"During the invasion in North Africa, I flew a P-38. In combat fighter vs. fighter at heights, it was lesser suitable. Because of the extreme cold, it was too inconvenient for the pilot. But at 3,000 m and lower, it could outmaneuver any other fighter, especially by turning."

p. 541: Ralph "Doc" Watson, 1942/43 captain in the same unit as Ethel above:
"It was hard to tear the P-38 around, the pilots with the strongest leg muscles could do this best. ...
In terms of performance, the P-38 had no characteristics to be called outstanding."

p. 543, by the authors:
At taxiing in the mud, the three-wheel undercarriage could be a disadvantage because often the front-wheel broke.

p. 564: Colonel E.K. Osher, 82. Fighter Group (flying bomber escort missions, RT):
"Using the Spitfire, we flew in a row and equalled our speed to the one of the escorted bombers. This didn´t do well using the P-38, because it took too long to get the aircraft on combat performance. The first trial of this kind bore unbearable losses." (he continues that another tactical formation showed better results, RT).

p. 575: Jack G. Walker, Dec. ´42 - May ´43 lieutenant 97. Squadron 82. Fighter Group:
"Among them (he encountered only Bf 109, Bf 110 and Ju 88 in combat, RT), the Bf 109 was the best type. Its 20mm cannon had a long range, while our P-38 cannons hardly ever worked (at least the ones in my squadron). Also in turning, the Bf 109 was better, so that we by opportunity kept away from circling around with it. On diving, we were superior again, but on any case the Bf 109 was superior in terms of its height performance."


[u]P-39</u>

p. 528, by the authors:
"First experiences showed that the P-39 was little appropriate to persist as fighter in the skies over Africa, so it was used as ground attacker from the beginning, a role it fulfilled more or less well. In this role, it was escorted by other fighters. If this escort was missing, the Airacobra pilots had to fight for their lives. This fight nearly always ended with the defeat of the Americans."


[u]P-40</u>

p. 525, by the authors:
"The XII. Air Support Command soon came to the conclusion, that the P-40F only could survive under the strong escort of Spitfires, because the opponent´s by speed and rate of climb superior fighters, left the only choice for the Curtiss to attack (I think they mean "hopping on" attacks from above at superior speed, RT) or to disappear."

p. 552: John L. Bradley, 333th Fighter Group:
"For the intended tasks it was obsolete, during the campaign it showed lesser performances.

p. 564: Colonel E.K. Osher, 82. Fighter Group:
"At the time of our action in Tunisia, the Kittyhawk was already obsolete. It only had a limited range and could not compete with the P-38 in terms of maneuverability. More than this, it lacked acceleration and rate of climb.
The same on p. 566: "I also flew (P-38, RT) against the Macchi 200, but we thought to have a considerable advantage over it. I would compare it to the P-40 (!!, RT).


[u]In general:</u>

p. 526/526, by the authors:
"At the 12. Air Force, mainly the formations of the XII. Air Support Command were thrown into action. They supported French and American troops in the central highland, but in the beginning only P-38s and P-40s, together with a handful of P-39s as tactical reconnoisaters, had shared. The both main fighter types suffered heavy drawbacks. The losses led to the withdrawal of the 14th and the 33th Fighter Group from action for refreshment."

p. 558: Brig.Gen. Harrison Thyng, 1942/43 commander of 309th Sqadron 31st Fighter Group (Spitfire pilot himself, RT):
"For the Germans, our P-39s, P-40s and P-38s were no dangerous opponents. The Spitfires even had to protect our own fighters. Only with good piloting knowledge and corresponding aggressivity American pilots could persist and survive."

again Colonel E.K. Osher, 82. Fighter Group:
P. 565: "I didn´t have the feeling that we were in serious troubles, but if the Germans would have had long-range fighters or had increased their attacks on our airfields, we would have suffered a very ill fate."


So, my conclusions are the following: The discussion about the P-38 is really controversial, even between members of the same unit. The lacking maneuverability is not even unanimous. Quoted are also lack of acceleration (compared to the Spitfire), instability of the front wheel under bad field conditions and poor cannon reliability.

To the P-39, I have nothing to add.

The P-40 is considered obsolete also by contemporary pilots, even if I have to say that IMHO Spitfire-lover Brig.Gen Thyng is exaggerating and Col. Osher´s comparison with the MC 200 is an injury. But the latter´s final conclusion is more or less the same what I conclude about a "what if" speculation when we consider the result of the air battle in Northwest Africa 1942/43.

Regards, RT

[Dogwalker]

quote:Originally posted by JoeB
The most successful USAAF P-40 unit in MTO, 325th FG, while they flew it (later flew P-47&51) *claimed* a 3+:1 ratio v mixed German/Italian opposition.
As for italians. The Checkertail Clan claimed 26 victories over C.202-205 (don't know the reported losses counter them).
Confronting them with Italian reports is not impossible, since they were claimed almost entirely in a period of two weeks of missions over Sardinia, (that, at that time, was defended by the Italians of 51° Stormo, based at Monserrato and Capoterra and and by the Germans of III./JG 77, based at Chilivani), and, something less than a middle of them, in a single mission.
The first encounter between the 325th and the 51° was on 24 june 1943, when the Checkertails tried to do a Fighter Sweep over the airport of Capoterra. Don't know the composition of the two formations and the claimings, but surely Checkertails were well received. They lost 3 aircraft (MACR n. 447-453-454) for the loss of Lt. Giusti for the Italians.
On 28 june, Ennio Tarantola scored his 11th victory over a P40 of the 325th near Decimomannu (MACR n. 449).
On 3 july, another incursion over Capoterra airport, and another loss (MACR n. 432)
On 20 july, 48 P40 of the Chekertails finally succeded to take the airport of Capoterra by surprise. Under the strafings only two Macchi C.205 succeded to takeoff. Sgt. Angelo Cern was shot down, and credited with a victory (MACR n. 450, but it's possible that he was shot down by the Germans of III./JG 77, that successively encountered the same formation and claimed some victories) the Chekertails claimed 3 C.202s and 3 Bf 109s in this engagement.
On 22 july, as stated in the 325th reports, 48 P40 of 325th encountered a mixed formation of C.202 and Bf 109, and claimed shot down 12 C.202 and 3 Bf 109.
Really, the Germans of JG 77 didn't took part in this engagement. The opponents were 15 C.202 and 6 205 of the 51°. The Italians lost four aircrafts (Cpt. Paolo Damiani, Lt. Redendo Bordotti, M.ll Virginio Pongiluppi, Sgt. Ferruccio Serafini), the 325th two (MACR n. 446-452). The italians reported the presence of several Spitfires in this engagement. Don't know how this statement matches with RAF reports.
On 26 july the Checkertails shot down the Macchi of Lt. Angelo Bortoletti.
On 28 july one of the Checkertails was shot down by the Italians over south Sardinia (MACR n. 525)
On 30 july, as stated by the 325th official site:
20 P-40s of the 317th and 16 P-40s of the 319th Squadron took off on a fighter sweep, to rendezvous over Sardinia. As they turned to fly south over the west part of the island, they were attacked near Sassari and 20 miles north of the rendezvous point where they were to meet the 319th coming from the east. The attacking force consisted of 25 to 30 Me-109s and Ma-202s, bringing the estimated total of enemy aircraft engaged to between 40 and 50 planes. Radio communications with the other squadron was poor, and repeated inquiries received no answers, so the 319th was unable to locate the battle. In the brief, intense battle that occurred, 20 P-40s engaged and destroyed 21 enemy aircraft. General observations on the encounter show that in addition to the 21 victories and 4 probables reported, there may have been many more. It is believed that Lt. Robert Sederberg, who singly went to the aid of a fellow pilot who was being attacked by 5 Me-109s, in addition to destroying one Me-109 for sure, scored at least four victories. Lt. Sederberg was last seen engaged in combat with 5 Me-109s.
Really the pilots of the 51° never took part in this engagement. The opponents were the Germans of III./JG 77, that had a total force of 23 aircrafts available (don't know how many flyable) and lost a total of 4 aircrafts. As stated by Jochen Prien.
The last encounter was that of 2 august near Cape Pula.
Few days later, the 51° were retired from Sardinia to be requipped with G55s lefting to the Re.2001 of 160° Gruppo and the remaining Germans of III./JG 77 the task to protect the island.

[Dogwalker]

quote:The P-40 is considered obsolete also by contemporary pilots, even if I have to say that IMHO Spitfire-lover Brig.Gen Thyng is exaggerating and Col. Osher´s comparison with the MC 200 is an injury.
I'd prefer a P40 over a C.200 every day, but don't think the comparison to be so injurious.

This is a comparison made by Flight leader D.H. Clarke, D.F.C. RAF, a P40 pilot that had the occasion to fly the C.200:

&lt;&lt;[...] I found it at Sorman, an acctractive palm-surrounded aerodrome on a hard surfaced salt lake, half way along the coast between Tripoli and Zuara. It stood in solitary splendour, apparently newly delivered, and the only damage was a smashed windscreen, as though the pilot had childishly beaten a spanner at it before flying with the rest of the ground staff. Happily I chalked the squadron markings LD on its shiny fuselage, organised a fitter and rigger to give it a thorough check, and three days later I ferried it to our temporary airstrip at El Assa - Macchi C 200, MM5285 was min!

And what a beauty she was ! Although in the end she tried to kill me, it was not her fault, and even now, after flying over fifty different types of aircraft, I look back at the few hours I flew her with considerable pleasure.

The cockpit was roomy and open, with non sliding roof to obstruct vision. Instead, two perspex flaps closed on each side so that when you were shut in it seemed as if your head was part of the external fittings and that the rest of you was entirely seperate inside. WIth only a slim head-fairing behind, visibility was perfect: without effort you could see right under the tail... a feat which could only be accomplished in a P-40 by excessive weaving or by opening the hood.

There was no bullet-proof windscreen, and although the seat of moulded armour-plate looked pretty it did not give the protection we had in British aircraft. Armament was poor too; only two 12.7mm machine guns, which were concealed in the fuselage and fired through the airscrew - but ammunition indicators in the cockpit ( a useful luxury) registering up to 650 rounds per gun., showed that a poor shot would have plenty of chances. The finger trigger to fire the guns was on the simple stick-type controls column.

There were two airspeed indicators, with a pito head on each wing-tip; rather confusing, but very interesting during a gliding turn.

The rest of the instruments were efficient but not so elaborate as in our fighters, and the only real peculiarity was the throttle leverwhich worked in reverse: a difficult point to remember when taxiing! The engine, a 850 hp Fiat A.70RC38 radial, was a joy of a sewing machine. I remember being astonished when, at 1,700 revs, the indicator speed was 365 kilometres - nearly 239 mph! MY impression was, and still is, that she was as fast as a Hurricane I, and certainly more manoeuvrable.

The Take-off run was fantastically short compared with our heavy P-40s. The handling qualities were finger-light under all conditions. I had some practice dogfights with Hurricane IIs, Kittyhawk IIIs and Spitfire Vs and found I could turn inside all of them. Although they were faster - the Hurricane only just - the Spitfire was the only one which could outclimb the Macchi C. 200.

The only bad habit I found in her was the way she dropped her starboard wing - suddenly, without warning - just before touch down. It was odd, because she did not do it when test-stalled in the air.

But it was her only vice, and the wide undercarriage prevented damage providing the hold-off was not too high. Otherwise it was best to make a wheel landing.... a performance I never liked.[...]&gt;&gt;

[JoeB]

quote:Originally posted by Dogwalker

As for italians.

Very cool info, thanks. Shows us again as always we can't base conclusions on claims only.

Joe

[Lightning]

Hi Greg,

Quoting you:
quote:Could very well have been a P-38J, . . .

I double checked this just to be sure. It was a P-38J that had been upgraded to full "L" standards by the Lockheed modification center in Northern Ireland. It was provided, including personalized nose art ("Snafuperman"), to Mr. LeVier for his demonstration tour.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi RT,

Quoting you:
quote:OK, friends, let´s open the "quotation battle"!
As we all know, we can always find a quotation that supports our point of view. I therefore submit the following without comment:

Arthur W. Heiden; Fighter pilot; 79th FS, 20th FG; England 1944:

"Nothing to these pilots, after the hard winter of 1943-1944, could be more beautiful than a P-38L outrolling and tailgating a German fighter straight down, following a spin or a split S or whatever gyration a startled, panicked and doomed German might attempt to initiate. You just couldn't get away from the P-38L. Whatever the German could do, the American in the P-38L could do it better. It was easily among the greatest fighting machines ever made."


In reviewing the P-38's overall contribution to the entire war, the last sentence in the excellent three-part work by Carlos Kopp, "Der Gabelschwanz Teufel," reads:

"The P-38 was without doubt the strategically most important American fighter of World War II."

Regards,
Lightning