In article ,
(The Revolution Will Not Be Televised) writes:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:22:31 -0400, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Gavin,
I don't wish to sound argumentative, but wouldn't it be more fair to
say that the Packard Merlins i Lancaster B.IIIs and various flavors
of Mosquito were more significant.

Not really, look at the numbers supplied over time in 1942-43. More
Packard Merlins were going into Hurricane Xs for delivery to the
Russians than into Kittyhawks or Mosquitos. The Packard Merlins for
the Lanc III were certainly significant, as any holdups in supply
affected expansion of Lancaster production in 1943, and this generated
concern at high levels of the MAP (unlike almost anything to do with
the Mosquito) which indicates the importance attached to PM supply as
part of the heavy-bomber programme.

Ah. O.K. That makes sense. Did most of the Murricane X's go to the
Soviets? I suppose it makes sense. Were thay delivered via Alaska?

I'm not trying to cut down the
Kittyhawk IIs again, but I think that everybody except, perhaps
those in the CBI Theater had pretty much decided by 1943 that P-40
based airframes weren't the best option available.

Sure. I don't disagree with that, but they still had to fight with
what they got, not what they wanted. As it happens the Merlin
Kittyhawks provided the majority of the US fighter strength in the MTO
in 1942-1943 during the first Allied offensive operations to clear
North Africa and attack Italy. That's not insubstantial, although the
picture changes rapidly over time as other types appeared in greater
quantity and replaced the P-40F/L on the front line.

I agree that there were a lot of P-40s in service in early '43. But
after that point, with Mustangs and Thunderbolts making their
appearancce, that that's what would be coming into the pipeline.
Of course, it took time.

As a point of
information, how long did teh Kittyhawk IIs stay in service? There
seemed to ba a rapid turnover of fighter types in North Africa in
'42 and '43, and I've seen information that indicates that the
Kittyhawk IIs in the RAAF Squadrons that wwere in North Africa were
replaces with Kittyhawk IIIs (P-40Ks and Ms) in relatively short
order. Could you please shed some light on this?

My information (which is limited on post-May 1943) is that the British
got one sizeable batch of P-40Fs which equipped 260 Squadron in the
DAF September/October 1942. These, plus some later arrivals, then
went on to equip 3 RAAF squadron and 260 Squadron had replaced it with
Kittyhawk IIIs by the spring of 1943 (some aircraft served in both
squadrons). 3 RAAF retained them into the summer of 1943 throughout
Sicily and the invasion of southern Italy. That's a reasonable
service life for aircraft which had been received nearly a year
earlier. The shortage of numbers, and the fact that they didn't get
any more supplied in quantity after November 1942 (as production
finished) meant that it was a minor type.

That makes sense. The life of a WW 2 fighter in combat was rather
short. There was a heavy toll not only to enemy action, but there was
also the steady drumbeat of operational losses, and they'd ger well &
truly worn out from being run hard. I'd imagine that what was
happening was that 3 Sqn. RAAF was brought up to strength with what
was left over from 260 Sqn, as the numbers of both were cut down by
attrition.

This seems equivalent to the service life of other variants of the
P-40 in RAF service, e.g. the Tomahawks in 112 Squadron which lasted
six months before replacement (July 1941 - January 1942), or the
Kittyhawks of 94 Squadron lasting six months before replacement
(January 1942 - May 1942).

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster