Luftwaffe fighter losses in Tunisia

[Christer Bergström]

” What about twin-engined German fighters?
You cannot hide them behind names like Zerstorer, Panzerjager, and Nachtjager because the Allies used singles and twins for the same tasks, and convoy patrols. Allied single-engined planes were also used for dive-bombing, so if you intend to count their losses then you should count the Stuka losses as well.”

Please calm down, SixNifty. This is just a hobby, and we should all be friendly to each other.

“You certainly have massaged the numbers in favor of the Germans.”

I am not trying to hide anything. . .

Facts about the German losses in Tunisia in January 1943:

Due to “Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen” and the daily returns to Generalquartiermeister der Luftwaffe, the Luftwaffe fighter units in the Mediterranean sustained the following aircraft losses in air combat in January 1943:

II./JG 2: 2
JG 27: 0
II./JG 51: 7
JG 53: 8
JG 77: 15

Total sum: 32.

“you should count the Stuka losses as well”

I did.

II./StG 3 and III./StG 3 flew successful operations against the Allied positions throughout January 1943 wihout more than two Ju 87s being registered as lost due to enemy fighters. (Another four Ju 87s were registered lost due to “Feindbeschuss” or unknown reasons.)

There were no other losses registered by any Stukageschwader in the whole Mediterranean area in January 1943. (Source: Daily reports to Generalquartiermeister der Luftwaffe.)

III./SKG 10 flew fighter-bomber missions thoughout January 1943, without losing more than a single aircraft to Allied fighter interception. (Arthy & Jessen, “Fw 190 in North Africa”, pp. 153 - 154.)

III./ZG 1 sustained no losses at all to hostile activity, not even a damaged plane. (Source: Daily reports to Generalquartiermeister der Luftwaffe.)

I./SchG 2 reported four Bf 109s destroyed or damaged due to hostile action through January 1943. (Source: Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen.)

I./NJG 2 reported two aircraft damaged in accidents, and not other losses, in the Mediterranean area in January 1943. (Rökker “”Chronik I./NJG 2”, p. 221.)

SchG 2 registered no more than a single Hs 129 damaged due to hostile activity in the Mediterranean through January 1943. (Source: Pegg, “Hs 129”, p. 319.)

Note: I started this thread, and the subject for this study is supremacy in air combat - because of a doscussion in another thread, where I said that the Luftwaffe “super veteran” fighter pilots inflicted very heavy losses on the Allies in Tunisia, and this was doubted. In that perspective, losses by Stukas etc are relevant only afar as they show how effectively the German fighter pilots managed to cover the Stukas etc. The German fighter pilots definitely managed to protect their Stukas from Allied fighter attacks in January 1943 - which is more than one can say about the numerically superior Allied fighters.

SixNifty's mere guess about Stukas and ground attack aircraft mainly grounded due to fuel shortage in Tunisia in January 1943 can't be accepted since it seems not to be based on any facts at all. In any case, I can find nothing which supports his guesswork. Read through Arthy's and Jessens's very detailed "Fw 190 in North Africa", and it describes a quite hectic activity by the Schlachtflieger. The same regarding the Stukas due to documents from StG 3. What does Shores's "Air Combat over Tunisia" say? IIRC, according to that study, the Luftwaffe Stukas and ground-attack aircraft were in full action throughout January 1943. However, IIRC, it says that regarding the Italian aircraft, they were largely grounded due to a non-functioning Italian supply situation (regarding e.g. spare parts and ammunition etc for Italian aircraft types). (I had that book, but lost it. I'm waiting for the second edition. I wish someone here with access to that book could "jump in".)

SixNifty, how would it be if you based your assumptions on facts instead of mere guesses? And please, SixNifty, save us from totally unfounded implications that serious researchers are deliberately trying to falsify history. That will only bring down your own credibility.



BTW, a general rule is that when one refers to sources, one can’t refer to oneself. If you only say that “elsewhere I have mentioned sources”, you might as well say nothing.