text: Tunisian losses - Page 3 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
  25th March 2005, 02:47
  What's up with all that blank space Christer, doesn't really improve your posts now does it?
  25th March 2005, 03:05
  Isn't this OT, Ruy? But okay - I don't know. That happens when I write the text in Word and then paste it into this post form. It didn't happen with the 12 O'Clock forum which you had last month. Let's return to Tunisia now. . .
  25th March 2005, 03:24
  I am re-reading "Fighters over Tunisia" with great interest. The massacre on Ju 52s over Tunisia on 5 April 1943 is another result of the US tactic of operating in large, concentrated numbers: The formation of Ju 52s was escorted by only two Bf 109s (II./JG 27) and three Bf 110s (III./ZG 26). These were attacked by 46 P-38s, divided into two formations (due to the US report).
  By using that incident as an example, I guess Christer wants us to believe that USAAF Lightnings always roamed the North African skies in group-sized wolfpacks. Nothing could be further from the truth -- the P-38 squadrons were usually committed piecemeal at the whim of army commanders. That is one reason why the 14th Fighter Group was temporarily withdrawn from battle the previous January, they were badly mauled, especially from mounting numerous ground attacks.
  Your example of forty-six P-38s together in one place was not an everyday occurrence in that campaign, so we have to wonder why you tried to portray it otherwise. John Mullins' history of the 1st FG confirms that some of their planes were present that day, with the rest from the 82nd FG. According to Mullins, no P-38s from 1st Fighter Group were involved in the more famous "Palm Sunday Massacre" of German air transports.
  "I only saw Italian fighters on about six occasions." ("Fighters over Tunisia", p. 395.)
  Sounds familiar, but then again some German pilots in Tunisia tried to avoid battle no matter what the odds. And let's face it, combat refusal is one way to reduce your losses.
  "...They used to dodge combat. It was only sneaky attacks by Focke-Wulf 190s, which were very fast, very heavily armed, and what-not else, but they were not manoeuverable. And if we could catch one, and get on his tail he couldn't shake us off. But in the Spitfire Mk. Vs we were totally outclassed, in speed, climb, all except manoeuvrability..."
  According to Andrew Arthy those were the words of a Kiwi Spitfire pilot (See Focke-Wulf Fw 190 in North Africa, p.53.)
  25th March 2005, 05:59
  Christer, according to "FW190 in North Africa", I have no confidence to the accurancy of Herr Bühlingen and Rudorffer 's claims, they obviously overclaimed heavily,
  And I do have a copy of ""Fighters over Tunisia" , but NO ! I will not sell it even for $4000 !
  I guess Christer wants us to believe that USAAF Lightnings always roamed the North African skies in group-sized wolfpacks. Nothing could be further from the truth -- the P-38 squadrons were usually committed piecemeal at the whim of army commanders. That is one reason why the 14th Fighter Group was temporarily withdrawn from battle the previous January, they were badly mauled
  Last edited by Christer Bergström; 25th March 2005 at 11:42.
  Of the April 5th, 1943 Ju 52 massacre.
  Anton Wöffen (Woeffen if ö is not showing) was one of the escorting JG 27 pilots and was shot down during the battle as was his wingman Uffz Rolf Piltz.
  In his book "Ich war kein Jagdflieger-As" Wöffen writes about the battle on p. 118-119*. According Wöffen there was 65 Ju 52s which didn't flew in a concentrated formation but instead "everyone flew as they pleased". Additionally the flight altitude was relatively high, so attacks from below and behind were easy. Also Wöffen mentions that the Lightnings would have been escorting Marauders (these were two scouting Bostons instead?). Wöffen writes that he could see several Lightning formations each consisting of eight planes. According him the first eight P-38 attacked the escorting Bf 109s. Wöffen and Piltz were both down soon.
  It is interesting that Wöffen writes 53 out of 65 Ju 52s would have been shot down, when the real numbers seem to be 13 out of 31.
  Translator Hannu Valtonen has also added in the book the two losses as:
  Uffz Rolf Piltz, MIA air battle 30 km ESE Cap Bon, Bf 109 G-4 Trop; WNr 15062, black 5.
  Fw. Anton Wöffen, air battle, parachuted, Bf 109 G-6 Trop, WNr 16423.
  PS I for one fail to understand what the argument here is. Does numerical superiority exclude the possibility that the pilots/planes/organization/leadership is equal or better than the opponent with fewer numbers?
  *I have the Finnish edition "Sittenkin ässä", published by Koala-kustannus 2003, ISBN 952-5186-45-8.
  Wöffen probably is confusing this with the figures for another Ju 52 massacre, namely that which took place on 18 April 1943, when 65 Ju 52s were attacked, of which 24 were destroyed and 35 damaged.
  Does numerical superiority exclude the possibility that the pilots/planes/organization/leadership is equal or better than the opponent with fewer numbers?
  Of course not. However, when 46 American fighter pilots attack 31 Ju 52s and 10 fighters and 17 of the American pilots claim to have shot down enemy aircraft, I think it is reasonable to conclude that if the figures would have been reversed - if there would have been 10 American and 46 German fighters - the result would have been different. Also, ten German fighter pilots managed to shoot down six Lightnings. I think it's reasonable to conclude that more US fighters would have been shot down if the Germans also would have had 46 fighter pilots in that combat. I feel that the objections we hear rather are of the opposite nature, namely implications that numerical superiority is a negligible factor, and that any success in air fighting shall be interpreted mainly as the result of superior skills on the "winning" side. (I am happy that the Swedish ice hockey team does not draw the conclusion that numbers don't matter. Can you imagine "Tre kronor" with only two men on the ice meeting the Finnish team - or even the Polish team! )
  25th March 2005, 12:15
  No it is not OT, since I am a moderator.
  If the directives from some continue I think it may be time for me to set some things straight. Now we can continue with the thread.
  May I expect your reaction? Christer Bergstroem's posts are off topic and not related to the subject of this thread. That is one thing. Another is that I still expect answers from him. How we can discuss anything if one side does not answer questions but goes off topic instead?