Malta Aircraft Defence
 

I'm always surprised that until March 1942, Malta's primary aircraft defence consisted of the Hurricane. Initially Mk.I's in 1940 and later in 1941 and early 1942 a mix of Mk.IIa, b, and c's.

And this on an Island considered to be a key for the Mediterranean theatre, given it's strategic position.

Notwithstanding that Spitfires should have been allocated much sooner for it's defence than March 1942, the British did in fact have another fighter available in reasonable numbers that could have been used in place of the Hurricane. One that was superior to the Hurricane in speed, climb, dive and armament. And one that had already replaced the Hurricane as the fighter of choice in the Western Desert in early 1941.

That fighter was the Curtiss P-40 C and E, or in British parlance the Tomahawk IIb and Kittyhawk I.

Anyone know if whether at any time the P-40 was considered for Malta? And if so why it wasn't utilised?

Re: Malta Aircraft Defence
 

Hi Jim,

while I´m reading "The Mediterranean and Middle East, Volume II - The Germans come to the help of their ally 1941", I only saw informations about the arrangements neccesary to have the american build types fighters in action: service, repair, improvement to desert conditions, pilots, ...
All these contitions were a challenge in Egypt. To have them beeing cared on Malta would have for sure further a huge influence on the supply-flow by convoys etc. to Malta.

And there were periods in 1941, while the Italians were the only attackers by air on Malta.

Regards


Darius

Re: Malta Aircraft Defence
 

Jim,
Quite interesting question and quite interesting answer from Darius.
The supply chain and logistics may be surely taken into account here...as Darius pointed out.

I finished the biography of Lt-Col. Charles W. Dryden who flew P-40E with the 99th FS (Tuskegee). He said the P-40 was nicknamed "Flying Coffin" due to the high number of accidents with this machine (spins, etc.).

I do not have the Flight Manual now at hands, but wonder that maybe its take off length required was more than that available and there were not enough trained pilots to fly them from there (Malta) earlier in the 1941 to 1942 mentioned period.

I remember reading other RAF books and war diaries that almost anything that landed at Malta was "confiscated" by the AOC there...several Blenheims, several twin-engined machines were thus placed at Malta's Disposal "in situ", by the AOC. I shall try to find those passages from the books I mentioned.

Nice thread and question...hope others will find an "Official" reason why the P-40 was not installed there operationally.

Adriano

Re: Malta Aircraft Defence
 

The Malta air battle, for the RAF at least, was a purely defensive one, requiring (ideally) a fast climbing point-defence interceptor. Range was no issue. The 1941-2 P40 models has no suitable multi-stage supercharger yet fitted to allow a required high-climb interception, often at short notice.

I guess the RAF made the tough decision to retain P40s in North Africa, where they could be used profitably for low level ground attack, and absorb Hurricane losses in the short term until the Spitfire V could be shipped out in early 1942.

Re: Malta Aircraft Defence
 

It's difficult to read about 7/JG-26 and its victory run over the Hurricane I/II fighters without suffering any losses. 48-0. IMHO, it would have been more worthwhile to export Spitfires in 1941. Maybe the production of Hurricanes needed to be curtailed or maybe it wasn't feasible?

Re: Malta Aircraft Defence
 

Thanks for the replies guys, appreciate them.

As mentioned Darius raised a very good point. I hadn't even considered the logistical side. But in saying that, it also applied to establishing P-40's in the Western Desert with all the support and maintenance paraphernalia. Which was achieved.

It's my understanding from reading Chris Shores 'Med Air War' that the P-40 Tomahawk replaced the Hurricane in the Western Desert as it was seen to be the superior fighter. At that time the Hurricane was getting short shift from the Italian G.50 and M.C. 202, and the Me 109E, as it was encumbered with the desert filter. "Imshi' Mason was one of the few pilots able to hold is own.

That the P-40 was the superior fighter to the Hurricane comes over very clearly in pilots bio's and comments who transitioned from Hurricane To P-40. John Jackson, Bob Whittle, Clive Caldwell, Bobby Gibbs all considered the P-40 Tomahawk to be far better than the Hurricane in climb, dive, speed, range and armament. A really good book to read on the subject is 'Desert Warriors', by Russell Brown.

And I don't think the lack of a two stage supercharger was a problem. Reading through Brian Cull's 'Hurricanes Over Malta' most raids by the Italians came in anywhere from as low as 1,000 ft to as high as 15,000 ft. Even the Germans rarely came over higher than 17,000 ft.

Re: Malta Aircraft Defence
 

I think it would be difficult to argue that the Hurricane was "getting short thrift" from the G-50, or even the MC200. The MC202 certainly. The effect of the filter has been argued as exaggerated.

Given bombers coming over at 17.000 ft, the P-40 would have had considerable problems dealing with them. The Mk.II Hurricane would have been operating much more in its design element. At lower levels there was little to choose between the MK.I and Mk.II.

The reason no Spitfires were sent to Malta (or anywhere else) was what has been termed the "keep it on the island" mentality. Remember that up to Barbarossa, the threat of a German invasion was still very real. Having already changed his mind on the matter twice, Hitler could have changed it again. Even if the Army aspects of British defence had improved immensely, the German Army was still larger, stronger, and better trained. We know it never happened, and perhaps could never have happened, but this can colour our judgement of those who lacked such impossible foresight.

The loss of Malta - which could well have happened however many Spitfires were on the island - would have been a disaster, likely leading to the much greater disaster of the loss of Egypt. But Britain and the Empire would have survived. The loss of the home islands would have been quite matter altogether.

Re: Malta Aircraft Defence
 

I think I have read where P-40s were discussed being sent to Malta. I thick they were rejected do to logistics reasons getting spare parts and supplies to Malta was a major problem so adding another aircraft type would have caused more problems. Also note most the the fighters sent to Malta came from England and were flown off aircraft carriers. The P-40s arrived in the middle east from around the Cape.

Re: Malta Aircraft Defence
 

Not quite sure about that, as for some time this route was closed because of the fighting in East Africa made the area a war zone, from which US shipping was banned. I think that most if not all of the Tomahawks were delivered to Takoradi and flown across the ferry route to Egypt.

Re: Malta Aircraft Defence
 

I think the poor performance of the P-40 above 15,000 ft has been greatly overplayed. While that was it's optimum performance height, it was still quite capable at greater heights.

The best example I can give to support that is the performance of the P-40 over Darwin at top end of Australia.

The 49th Fighter Group was based around Darwin and intercepted Japanese raids during 1942. The Japanese bombers commonly came flew at 25,000 ft, the Zero escorts around 27,000 ft; letting down to 22,000 ft for the bomb run and exit.

With the aid of radar the 49th FG intercepted incoming attacks on fifteen (15) occasions at heights around the 20-22,000 ft mark. Between the 18 March and 2 September 1942 they claimed 1 x Type 97 reconnaissance plane, 25 x Type 1 G4M bombers and 37 x Type 0 fighters.
NB: Figures taken from S.W. Ferguson's "Protect And Avenge, The 49th FG In WWII".

In return they lost 17 P-40's in combat.

That is quite an impressive performance for a fighter rated 'poor' above 15,000 ft. Even allowing for over-claiming.