# P-40 vs. Zero



## V-1710 (Jun 16, 2006)

I just read an interesting article about the P-40, and some of it was written by a 14th. Air Force pilot who said a few things I had not heard before. The standard diving attack was mentioned, and was said to be effective, as the Flying Tigers proved earlier. This pilot said maintaining an airspeed of over 250 m.p.h. was the best way to even up the fight between a 40 and a Zero or Oscar. The Zero's agility of course was legendary at low speeds, but above 250 those large ailerons became a liability, and a roll at high speeds was extremely difficult due to the stick forces. A 40 would out-roll a Zero at high speeds, and a good 40 pilot could use this to great effect if the Zero pilot fell for it. Another factor mentioned was that for every successive Zero model, the contemporary 40 version was faster. A6M2 vs. P-40C, A6M3 vs. P-40E and F, A6M5 vs. P-40N. In each case, the pilot said the 40 had at least a 30 m.p.h. speed advantage. So, the 40 pilot could always break the engagement off. The P-40 of course had an even greater advantage in diving speeds, with well over 400 m.p.h. attainable with no risk of damage to the robust airframe. Early Zero's couldn't hit 350 without the risk of damage. The 14th. Air Force pilot also indicated that himself and many of his fellow pilots preferred the 40 to the P-51, as the high altitude capabilities of the 51 were not a factor in their theater. Seems like the more I read about the old P-40, the more I find out that it truly was by no means a second rate fighter. Most Japanese pilots had a great deal of respect for a competent pilot in a 40, but I have wondered what opinion the Luftwaffe pilots had of the Tomahawk.


----------



## Marshall_Stack (Jun 16, 2006)

Why did the 14th pilots like the P-40 over the P-51? More rugged? Even though high altitude performance may not be a factor, aircraft range is always a factor. Big difference between the two, and that would be a big factor to me.

As far as the Luftwaffe, I heard that the P-40 could out turn their planes. As a fighter I don't think they feared them but probably hated them as a fighter-bomber.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 16, 2006)

It was more like 300 MPH when aileron response got heavy and slowed on the Zeros. But P-40 pilots used the strong points of their crates and avoided the weak points like good pilots should. The main thing was that they kept in the energy fighter thinking and chose their combats when they had the advantage. Often they would simply dive on their prey and make one firing pass and keep going whether they could confirm a kill or not.

I don't believe the Luftwaffe was overly scared of P-40Bs Cs aka Tomahawks or Kittyhawks P-40Ds Es in North Afrika. F3s and F4 Trops had good performance compared to P-40s plus Spits Vs and Hurricane IIs of the theater at the time.

From all I know I would say that the Spit was the toughest customer the men of JG 27 faced from the dialogues they've left.

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Salim (Jun 16, 2006)

Even though the P-40 may have been a charm, the P-51 had longer range, better high altitude performance, and, more importantly, a far greater maximum speed.

Remember, the Zero (and probably other Japanese fighters) had poor performance at high speed, whilst the P-51 was just fine. Remember the 'zoom and boom' attacks? Speed kills, and that's a fact.

Of course, in regards to the zoom and boom tactics, I guess the P-47 would have been better for those for obvious reasons...


----------



## PipsPriller (Jun 18, 2006)

The Flying Tigers never fought against the Zero. By the time they were operational the Navy had moved out of China and the JAAF had taken over for the remainder of the war. Against the Ki-27's and Ki-43's the P-40 did reasonably well. Later in the war when face with the Ki-44 and Ki-84 in didn't peform so well.

Over New Guinea there were only a few scraps with the Zero's - and the P-40 struggled to keep it's head above water. Partly due to the superior quality of the Japanese Navy pilots and partly due to the relative inexperience of the Americans' and Australians. And of course the P-40's suffered badly against the Zero's over the Philippines.

The only battlefront where the P-40's held their own against the Zero was over Darwin in 1942. With the advantage of radar and ealry warning lookouts in te Timor Sea the 49th FG usuallu managed to get airborne in time to gain an altitude advantage against the attacking G4M's and Zero's. But even with that they only managed a 1:1 victory rate against the fighters. They did much better against the bombers.

The P-40 had three clear advantages aginst the A6M Zero. One was it's ruggedness - which saved many an Allied pilot. Another was straight line speed - although this was not always evident in a dogfight and had to be worked at. The third, and most important, was it's dive speed; which would often be the last resort for pilot. But this was more a defensive advantage than offensive. Once a pilot dived away he would rarely be able to climb back up and rejoin the fight - it would have moved on out of reach.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2006)

Pips hit it on the head - I've posted earlier about USAAF units in late summer 42' were P-39s and P-40 had about a 1.5 to 1 kill ratio over New Guinea and escalated that kill ratio when the P-38 entered the scene in Dec. 42.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 19, 2006)

Here is a very rare color picture of a Zero being shot down by a P40 in China. 









Ooopppsssss.... i didnt mean China, I meant Chino! Sorry about that! And it is a rare picture because I rarely show it.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 19, 2006)

Just about any plane that flew against the Zero could out-dive it to disengage....

Zeros were mistaken for other aircraft approx 60% of the time... Many pilots didn't know the difference.... The Blacksheep went through similar problem throughout their 2 tours, with pilots misidentifying Zekes and Haps all the time, not to mention shooting down numerous Ki-44's when infact the werent any in theatre at the time....


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 20, 2006)

they all do look the same


----------



## R988 (Jun 21, 2006)

Luftwaffe in North Africa rated the P-40 as a more dangerous opponent than the Hurricane but not as dangerous as the P-38 or Spitfire IIRC, not sure about the Eastern front.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 21, 2006)

From an old post...

"In Italy the 325 Fighter Group, commonly know as "The Checker-Tailed Clan" amassed one of the best kill to loss ratios of any fighter group in the European Theater. With a yellow and black checkerboard adorning the tail of their P-40s (and later P-47s and P-51s), they flew many sorties against more numerous German forces, and won most of the time. In 1943 the 325th won two major engagements. On July 1, 22 checker-tailed P-40s were making a fighter sweep over southern Italy when they were jumped by 40 Bf-109s. After an intense air battle, the result was half of the German aircraft shot down for the loss of a single P-40. There was a similar situation on the 30th of July, again over Italy, when 35 Bf-109s ambushed 20 P-40s. On this occasion, 21 German fighters were shot down, again for the loss of a single P-40. Because the pilots of the 325th were trained to maximize the P-40's strengths and minimize its weaknesses, it became a lethal opponent for the German fighters. The final record of "The Checker-Tailed Clan's" P-40s was 135 Axis planes shot down (96 were Bf-109s), for only 17 P-40s lost in combat."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aggie08 (Jun 25, 2006)

I hadn't heard of that, flyboy. I always saw the luftwaffe ace's kill counts- sorry, i'm awful with names- more than one shot down at least 40 warhawks. it seemed like the p40 was effective only against the japanese.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2006)

No doubt the Luftwaffe had their way with the P-40,; at least not all the time and not against the 325th FG...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 25, 2006)

i think Aggie's right, the P-40's fine for the pacific and Africa but over Western Europe the incredible rate of development left the P-40 behind, she didn't do too badly against the LW in Africa though much to her credit.......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 25, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> i think Aggie's right, the P-40's fine for the pacific and Africa but over Western Europe the incredible rate of development left the P-40 behind, she didn't do too badly against the LW in Africa though much to her credit.......


Yep - you'll find later in the war the P-40 was used a bit in Italy and was flown by the Tuskeege Airmen.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm a little queasy about saying that the P-40 was effective in the Pacific. The success of the AVG in the CBI theater was pretty unique over all. When facing the Japanese Army it may have barely survived and even held its own to some extent but against the Navy it was meat on the table like the Buffalo and Airacobra.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 26, 2006)

The P40 was flown with great effect in the SW Pacific after the pilots completey understood not to dogfight Japanese aircraft and to use the diving and zoon charachteristics of the plane to its advantage.

If anything, the IJA "Oscar" frequently found over New Guinie was the plane that was "meat on the table"


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2006)

Twitch said:


> I'm a little queasy about saying that the P-40 was effective in the Pacific. The success of the AVG in the CBI theater was pretty unique over all. When facing the Japanese Army it may have barely survived and even held its own to some extent but against the Navy it was meat on the table like the Buffalo and Airacobra.



The stats don't show that. This is from an earlier post

"For the entire 1942 combat year the FEAF lost 148 fighter aircraft in air-to-air combat while destroying 212 fighter aircraft = 1.43 to 1 FEAR vs Japan. You could slice numbers and do more research and attempt to insert Japanese aircraft by type, but considering the most numerous aircraft were the Zero and Oscar, these numbers do not represent great success by the IJN or JAAF. That's history!!!

And also consider the USN had a similar record after Midway while flying the F4F...

P-38s were entering the scene in late December 1942 so these numbers mainly come from P-39s, P-400s and P-40. We could throw in the fact that the best of the Japanese pilots were on scene during this period but the bottom line the IJN and JAAF did not do as well against US forces as history leads us to believe despite touting the Nishizawas, Iwamotos and Sakais (nothing against them). The US were beating back the IJN and JAAF with P-40s P-39s and P-400s (F4Fs for the USN) and the numbers prove it. Now one could challenge the accuracy of FEAF kill confirmation processes and try to compare them with Japanese losses, but I guess that's for another thread....

Consider the aircraft, pilot skill and the way history actually played out...."

Here the site I got my numbers from...http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 26, 2006)

The P-40 did its share in the PTO, it wasn't the best aircraft, But it was available when it was needed the most and helped hold the line. For instance,75 sqdn RAAF was formed and equipped with P-40's in early March 1942. The squadron had just 9 days to train on their new aircraft after which they were deployed to Port Morsby on the 21st of March to try and stop the Japanese. The unit went into action immediatley after arriving, and despite being the only fighter squadron in New Guinea at the time and greatly out numbered, they held out for 44 days before being relieved by USAAC P-39's. The squadron flew back to Australia with 1 Kittyhawk intact. 75 sqn lost 12 pilots KIA and lost 22 aircraft but had shot down 17 enemy a/c, probably destroyed 4 more and damaged a furthur 29.
The P-40's also played a major role in the defeat of the Japanese at the Battle Of Milne Bay. The Zero might have been superior but they certainly didn't have it all their way. On top of this the P-40's also had considerable success defending Darwin from Japanese fighters and bombers in 1942.


----------



## R988 (Jun 27, 2006)

Did they really have success in Darwin? Most of what I have read seems to say they didn't do squat, though I haven't looked at it with any detail.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2006)

Just remember that at the time the US confirmation system was anything 'but' thorough.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2006)

R988 said:


> Did they really have success in Darwin? Most of what I have read seems to say they didn't do squat, though I haven't looked at it with any detail.


The numbers speak for themselfs - In looking at these numbers they are consistant with what the USAAF was doing at the same time.



Soren said:


> Just remember that at the time the US confirmation system was anything 'but' thorough.



Agree to a point - I think the conformation system was better in the Pacific as far as the USAAF goes. From what I understand you needed 2 witnesses and/ or gun camera, sometimes Intel team were actually sent in to look for the wreck. I won't beat a paycheck on the over-all accuracy but I think the picture did show that with P-39s and P-40s the USAAF and the RAAF were able to hold their own and them some against the Japanese.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From what I understand you needed 2 witnesses and/ or gun camera,



No that was only later on, and gun-camera footage was never a requirement, it was always welcome however.




> sometimes Intel team were actually sent in to look for the wreck.



Well that is pretty much true for every airforce back then, with some many times even requiring it - the Luftwaffe. The JAAF and IJN from time to time also sent out a search 'if' the situation allowed it.


In any case I pretty much agree with you FLYBOYJ, the P-40 didn't make a fool out of itself in the pacific, it did a good job against a technically superior foe and for that you can admire the plane and the pilots who flew her.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2006)

Soren said:


> In any case I pretty much agree with you FLYBOYJ, the P-40 didn't make a fool out of itself in the pacific, it did a good job against a technically superior foe and for that you can admire the plane and the pilots who flew her.


Agree, and I think that many were made to think that flying a P-39 or a P-40 in the Pacific in mid 1942 was an automatic death sentance, I think history proved otherwise...


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2006)

I agree completely.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2006)

This was from Wikipedia..

"South West Pacific Area P-40 squadrons were *slaughtered* by Japanese fighters like the Ki-43 "Oscar" and the A6M Zero in the first major battles at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and in the Dutch East Indies. But in later battles improved tactics and training allowed the strengths of the aicraft to be more effectively utilized, enabling often outnmbered P-40 squadrons to hang on against heavy odds, and eventually triumph over the IJN and the JAAF.

The 49th Fighter Group was one of the most important U.S. fighter groups in the South West Pacific, in action from the beginning of the war to the very end, playing a key role in the defense of Darwin, Australia and Port Morseby, New Guinea. The 49th flew P-40's until they were replaced by P-38's in 1944.

Robert Marshall DeHaven was an ace with the 49th FG, scoring 10 kills in the P-40, 14 kills overall. He compared the P-40 to the P-38:

"If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. In many conditions, it could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. The P-40 kept me alive and allowed me to accomplish my mission. The real problem with it was lack of range. As we pushed the Japanese back, P-40 pilots were slowly left out of the war. So when I moved to P-38s, an excellent aircraft, I did so not because I believed that the P-40 was an inferior fighter, but because I knew the P-38 would allow us to reach the enemy. I was a fighter pilot and that was what I was supposed to do."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 28, 2006)

The following is taken from the book Darwins 
Air War by the Aviation Historical Society Of 
The Northern Territory.

The Following apply to combat with P-40's

RAID No. DATE No. of DEFENDERS (P40's) LOSSES ENEMYLOSSES
1, 19.2.42, 11, 10, 2F 3B destroyed
2B prob

6, 22.3.42, unknown amount, 0, 1F destroyed

7, 28.3.42, as above, 1 prob, 1 des. 1 dam.

8, 30.3.42, as above, 1, 1 damaged

9, 31.3.42, as above, 0, 1F des. 1B prob

12, 4.4.42, 14, 1+2crashlanded, 4F,4B destroyed
2F,1B damaged

14, 25.4.42, approx.50, 0, 3F,8B destroyed
1B damaged

15, 27.4.42, as above, 4 missing, 4F,3B destroyed
2F probable

16, 13.6.42, 36, 1+1crashlanded, 1F probable

17, 14.6.42, unknown, 1, 4F destroyed

18, 15.6.42, 28, 1+1missing, 6F destroyed
1F damaged

19, 16.6.42, 12, 3missing, 1F destroyed
2crashlanded, 1B probable

23, 28.7.42, 1, 0, 0

26, 31.7.42, 34, 1+2damaged, 6F,3B destroyed
3F,3B probable
3F,2B damaged

27, 23.8.42, 24, 1 crashed, 8F,6B destroyed
3B probable
4F damaged

35, 25.9.42, 1, 0, 0

36, 25.9.42, 1, 0, 0

37, 26.9.42, 3, 0, unknown,

38, 27.9.42, 2, 0, 0

39, 27.9.42, 1, 0, 0

40, 24.10.42, 2, 0, 0

44, 25.10.42, 4, 0, 0

46, 27.10.42, 1, 0, 0

47, 23.11.42, 1, 0, 1B destroyed
1B probable

48, 26.11.42, 1, 0, 0

49, 27.11.42, 1,  0, 0

50 20.1.43, 4, 0, 1 probable

51 21.1.43, 4, 0, 0

I cant' say how accurate these figures are but I thought they would be of interest. The losses the Japanese were taking must have been a concern because they switched from daylight to night raids after raid 27, hence the lower number of losses by the Japanese and claims by the P40's.
When they did resume daylight raids on 2.3.43, however the spitfires had arrived and soon won superiority over the Japanese. The last raid was conducted on Darwin in November 43.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 28, 2006)

Great info Wildcat, again reinforcement of the P-40s actual impact.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 28, 2006)

Good stuff Wildcat!


----------



## Col. Sir Harry Flashman (Mar 17, 2017)

V-1710 said:


> I just read an interesting article about the P-40, and some of it was written by a 14th. Air Force pilot who said a few things I had not heard before. The standard diving attack was mentioned, and was said to be effective, as the Flying Tigers proved earlier. This pilot said maintaining an airspeed of over 250 m.p.h. was the best way to even up the fight between a 40 and a Zero or Oscar. The Zero's agility of course was legendary at low speeds, but above 250 those large ailerons became a liability, and a roll at high speeds was extremely difficult due to the stick forces. A 40 would out-roll a Zero at high speeds, and a good 40 pilot could use this to great effect if the Zero pilot fell for it. Another factor mentioned was that for every successive Zero model, the contemporary 40 version was faster. A6M2 vs. P-40C, A6M3 vs. P-40E and F, A6M5 vs. P-40N. In each case, the pilot said the 40 had at least a 30 m.p.h. speed advantage. So, the 40 pilot could always break the engagement off. The P-40 of course had an even greater advantage in diving speeds, with well over 400 m.p.h. attainable with no risk of damage to the robust airframe. Early Zero's couldn't hit 350 without the risk of damage. The 14th. Air Force pilot also indicated that himself and many of his fellow pilots preferred the 40 to the P-51, as the high altitude capabilities of the 51 were not a factor in their theater. Seems like the more I read about the old P-40, the more I find out that it truly was by no means a second rate fighter. Most Japanese pilots had a great deal of respect for a competent pilot in a 40, but I have wondered what opinion the Luftwaffe pilots had of the Tomahawk.



Because everyone or it seems so, is disparaging the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, here's something to read & mull over before doing so again.
This article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the P-40 was a performance contemporary of the Spitfire I, 109E, Hurricane I, etc.

THE CURTISS P-40 WARHAWK

By Patrick Masell

The P-40, with the distinctive shark's mouth painted on its nose, has always been one of the most recognizable fighters of World War II. Yet few realize that it is also one of the most controversial. The Curtis P-40 is thought by many to have been slow and obsolete from its inception. Its role in the defense of the Pacific during the early years of the war has been minimized. The Warhawk was, in fact, a much better fighter than most observers believe.

There are three main reasons for this misconception. For one, the P-40 was based on an older aircraft, the P-36. The forward section and the liquid cooled Allison V-12 engine (V-1710) were new, but from the firewall to tail it was exactly the same as the P-36. Because of this, the P-40 is thought to have been obsolescent from its inception. Its naval contemporary, the F4F Wildcat (which is described as being a better opponent for the Zero by World War II magazine) was based on a biplane design! Of course, few authorities mention that. The P-36 airframe wasn't obsolete, merely proven successful. It was actually very sturdy. Secondly, newer fighters, including the P-38, P-47, and P-51 overshadowed it. Finally, its faults (and it had some--all aircraft do) were exaggerated to the point that it seemed impossible for the P-40 to succeed against any enemy aircraft. Although it couldn't out maneuver the Zero (the Warhawk's main foe in the Pacific Theater), neither could the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lighting, Thunderbolt, Mustang, Wildcat, or Corsair, but that is never mentioned.

The P-40 concept began life in 1937. It was at about this time that the United States government began to understand the position they were in. The Nazis were preparing to crush Europe and the Japanese were taking bites out of China. U.S. leaders realized that neutrality wouldn't last, and that the need for arms was great. Because of that the Army Air Corps issued a specification for a new fighter that could be produced quickly.

Several companies threw their hat in the ring with various aircraft designs. Curtiss offered their P-40 design; Lockheed came with their P-38 design, and Bell with the P-39. When Curtiss won the contract, the other companies created an uproar. They believed the P-40 was obsolescent, since much of it was based on an older design. As previously explained, from the firewall back it was the same as the previous P-36, but the engine and other vital components were new, which increased performance dramatically.

The Army wanted a sure-fire design. The twin-engine P-38 was too radical to be certain of success. It probably didn't help when the P-38 prototype crashed. One drawback to the P-38 was that it was not designed to be mass-produced. It was designed as a special purpose, high altitude interceptor. The P-38 simply could not be produced in sufficient quantity in time. Also, at the time, the Army did not foresee the need for great numbers of high altitude fighters that later became apparent. They thought a fighter's main role was ground support, and found the P-40 well suited for the job. Besides, if the Army had chosen the P-38, American pilots would have initially been outmatched in dogfights with the more nimble Japanese Zero, and probably taken as many losses as the P-40 did. In that case, I would be sticking up for the misunderstood Lockheed P-38!

Two myths about the P-40 were that it was slow and not maneuverable. Compared to later American and German aircraft with 400+ mph top speeds, a mere 345 mph at 15,000 feet (the top speed of the P-40C) doesn't seem that impressive. But remember, in 1940-41 the Warhawk's top speed essentially matched that of the Spitfire 1A (346 mph at 15,000 feet) and Bf-109E (348 mph at 14,560 feet), and surpassed the A6M-21 Zero (331 mph at 14,930 feet) and Hawker Hurricane II (327 mph at 18,000 feet).

The famous Mitsubishi Zero fighter was more maneuverable than the new Curtiss fighter was, and because of this people came to believe the P-40 couldn't out turn a hot air balloon. Of course they didn't take into account that the Zero was the most maneuverable fighter of the time. In fact, the P-40 proved in combat that it could out maneuver many of its rivals. Other positive attributes of the P-40 were good armor, firepower, roll rate, and dive speed, making it one of the best low altitude fighters of the war. Japanese pilots rated the Warhawk their most dangerous foe at low altitude. (They considered the P-38 Lightning best at high altitude and the F4U Corsair the best overall). The P-40's chief drawback was a slow climb rate, and climbing to escape an enemy was considered suicide.

Following its acceptance by the Army Air Corps in 1940, the P-40 was quickly produced and sent to several American air bases. There, the pilots were glad to get new aircraft. The British also received P-40s and matched it against the legendary Messerschmitt Bf-109. The Tomahawk (as the British called the early P-40 models--they named the later models Kittyhawk) did well in combat with the famous German fighter. Although it was a bit slower and outclassed in rate of climb, its good dive speed, superior armor, maneuverability, and armament made the Tomahawk a force to be reckoned with. The Germans felt that it was a more dangerous opponent than the Hawker Hurricane. In fact, the British wanted to replace their old Hurricanes with new P-40s. Other countries that operated P-40s (early P-40, B, and C export models were referred to as the Hawk 81A by Curtiss; later P-40D, E, K, and M export models were known as the Hawk 87A) included Canada, Russia (the USSR), Brazil, New Zealand, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, and China, among others.

The specifications for the numerous P-40E-1 of 1941 (also Hawk 87A-4 and Kittyhawk IA), which are similar to the entire series of P-40E, K, and M models, are as follows (taken from The Complete Book of Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough): Max speed, 362 mph at 15,000 feet; Time to 5,000 feet, 2.4 minutes; Max range, 850 miles at 207 mph (with drop tank); Armament, six .50 inch (12.7mm) wing mounted machine guns; Empty weight, 6,900 pounds; Loaded weight, 8,400 pounds; Span, 37 feet 4 inches; Length, 31 feet 9 inches; Height, 12 feet 4 inches; Wing area, 236 square feet.

On December 7, 1941 a large Japanese air armada attacked the U.S. Navy base at Pearl Harbor, and all of the nearby airfields. This is where the P-40 first defended American soil. Unfortunately, few American fighters were able to get into the air; most were destroyed on the ground. Two pilots, George Welch and Kenneth Taylor, managed to take off and shot down several Japanese planes. From this time onward a great responsibility fell on the P-40 pilots' shoulders. In order for the U.S. to win the war, air superiority must be wrested from the Japanese. Otherwise, their bombers would be able to fly unopposed over Allied ships and territory. I've read descriptions of the Warhawk that would lead you to believe that it was the worst possible fighter for the job. Yet, it was able to do just that for the first two years of the Pacific war, and continued to help do so until the end of the war.

The P-40's first fame came at the hands of the now legendary Flying Tigers, a group of American mercenaries who volunteered to defend China against the Japanese. Well before the war reached America, President Franklin D. Roosevelt realized that the U.S. would eventually be drawn into it. Most Americans felt strongly about staying neutral, but Roosevelt wanted to aid the Allied powers against the fascist juggernaut. However, an election was coming and his toughest rival was a strong isolationist. Political expediency demanded that he promise continued neutrality (sadly, not the last time an American president would deceive the electorate). The A.V.G. (American Volunteer Group) was a way around this. The program was to send volunteers from the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine air corps to China, along with U.S. fighters, and establish three squadrons to combat the threat from the rising sun. Colonel Claire Lee Chennault headed the operation. He pieced together a fighter group and shipped them to China with 99 (a crane mishap destroyed the 100th) new P-40 (actually export model Hawk 81A-2) aircraft originally intended for British use. Aircraft numbers 1 through 33 formed The Adams and Eves, 34 through 66 made up The Panda Bears and 67 to 99 created the most famous of the three squadrons, The Hells Angels.

During the following weeks Chennault ran his crews ragged, training them to fly and maintain the P-40. He understood its shortcomings, mainly inferior turn rate and a slow rate of climb, and taught his men to maximize its effectiveness by using the P-40's superior top and diving speed to hit and run. He also preached fighting in pairs, rather than in Vics of three or singly, as Japanese doctrine taught. It took time, but by early December 1941 the A.V.G., with ferocious looking shark's jaws painted on their P-40's (an idea copied from the RAF's No. 112 squadron), was ready for action. By this time 33 planes had already been lost, mostly due to pilot error.

Their first big chance came on Dec. 8, a day after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. They attacked ground targets and engaged enemy aircraft in defense of the Burma Road, China's only supply line to the West. For the next 6 months this rag-tag band of volunteer pilots racked up an amazing record against overwhelming enemy numbers, earning the A.V.G. the nickname "Flying Tigers".

On July 4, 1942 the Flying Tiger's contracts were due to expire. After that, the U. S. Army intended to take over and make this back into a military group. Nearly all of the volunteers objected to this, including Col. Chennault, who tried to prevent it. But there was no reasoning with the Army; so on July 4th the group that had single-handedly defended the skies over China was disbanded. Most of the Flying Tigers went back to their old units. Only five pilots stayed with Chennault to help train the newcomers. The records show that after only 6 months of combat the Flying Tigers had shot down 297 enemy aircraft confirmed, and another 153 probable, for only 12 planes lost in air combat. But 57 of their original 99 P-40's were no longer air worthy due to combat damage, pilot error, maintenance problems, or just being worn out.

The dissolution of the A.V.G. was by no means the end of the P-40's involvement in China. The Army sent updated models of the P-40 and fresh pilots to form the China Air Task Force (CATF). Chennault (now a Brigadier General) tried his best to make it the most effective outfit possible. When the new pilots arrived in China, they found themselves in a difficult position. They were isolated in a remote theater, with the giant Himalayan Mountains to their backs, which allowed only a trickle of supplies to come through. Also, they were outnumbered more than 3 to 1 by the Japanese. The CATF's entire complement of Warhawks did not equal the number of planes assigned to just one of the Japanese airbases in the area. In nearly all of their engagements they found themselves heavily outnumbered. In one such engagement, 21 P-40s tangled with 45 Oscars. The result was 27 enemy aircraft shot down with no losses. It was one of the greatest victories enjoyed by the CATF. But eventually the China Air Task Force was defeated, not by Japanese planes, but by a lack of supplies, spare parts, and the spread of disease. At the end few of their P-40s were even capable of flying. Yet by the time it was disbanded, on the 19th of March 1943, the CATF had shot down 149 enemy aircraft with another 86 probable, for only 16 losses.

Records of success in combat like these were not isolated to the Pacific Theater. In Italy the 325 Fighter Group, commonly know as "The Checker-Tailed Clan" amassed one of the best kill to loss ratios of any fighter group in the European Theater. With a yellow and black checkerboard adorning the tail of their P-40s (and later P-47s and P-51s), they flew many sorties against more numerous German forces, and won most of the time. In 1943 the 325th won two major engagements. On July 1, 22 checker-tailed P-40s were making a fighter sweep over southern Italy when they were jumped by 40 Bf-109s. After an intense air battle, the result was half of the German aircraft shot down for the loss of a single P-40. There was a similar situation on the 30th of July, again over Italy, when 35 Bf-109s ambushed 20 P-40s. On this occasion, 21 German fighters were shot down, again for the loss of a single P-40. Because the pilots of the 325th were trained to maximize the P-40's strengths and minimize its weaknesses, it became a lethal opponent for the German fighters. The final record of "The Checker-Tailed Clan's" P-40s was 135 Axis planes shot down (96 were Bf-109s), for only 17 P-40s lost in combat.

These are just three examples of the Warhawks effectiveness in air-to-air combat. Consider the New Zealand Air Force's record: 99 confirmed kills and 14 possible, for only 20 P-40s lost in combat.

Still, by 1944 the P-40 was being supplanted by newer fighters, and production of the final (and most numerous) version, the P-40N, ceased in December of that year. By 1945 all European Warhawk squadrons had switched to either the Mustang or Thunderbolt, and the only active P-40s were in the China-Burma-India Theater. Altogether, a staggering 13,738 P-40s were built during WW II, making it the third most numerous American fighter of the war (slightly behind the P-47 and P-51, but ahead of the P-38 and all others).

After the war, the Truman Committee investigated why the P-40 was used until the end of the war, even when higher performance fighters were available. They concluded that the Army did not continue to order P-40s due to "outside influence." Perhaps the obvious answer is the right one: the USAAF ordered so many P-40s because they did a heck of a good job!

The Second World War ended in September of 1945, but the P-40's career did not. Although the U.S. Army Air Force retired the P-40, it continued to serve with the air forces of smaller nations into the early 50s. Eventually, age and changing times got to the old war-horse and, like all of its piston-engine peers, it had to yield the skies to the jet age.

It is unfortunate that, even with all its victories, the P-40 appears on many people's "worst fighters of WW II" list. At best it is considered mediocre. Even though it served brilliantly, frequently fighting against the odds, and amassed an exceptional kill to loss ratio, it is still often thought of as a slow, unmanuverable, and obsolescent fighter. It fought in the Pacific against overwhelming enemy numbers, flying in some of the harshest conditions to be found on earth, and held the line for two years, until newer planes could be brought into service. After all that, it defended other (smaller) countries for several more years. Because of its achievements, I feel that the rugged, dependable, gravely misunderstood P-40 deserves to be considered one of the most successful fighters of World War II.

In these times of supersonic jets firing guided missiles at targets many miles away, the Warhawks of WW II, armed only with short range machine guns and their pilots' skill, seem almost quaint. Although collectors restore these old war birds, and a few lucky people at air shows occasionally get to see one of them fly, it will never be possible to restore the glory of the days when they were the Tigers of the sky.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Col. Sir Harry Flashman (Mar 17, 2017)

Wildcat said:


> The P-40 did its share in the PTO, it wasn't the best aircraft, But it was available when it was needed the most and helped hold the line. For instance,75 sqdn RAAF was formed and equipped with P-40's in early March 1942. The squadron had just 9 days to train on their new aircraft after which they were deployed to Port Morsby on the 21st of March to try and stop the Japanese. The unit went into action immediatley after arriving, and despite being the only fighter squadron in New Guinea at the time and greatly out numbered, they held out for 44 days before being relieved by USAAC P-39's. The squadron flew back to Australia with 1 Kittyhawk intact. 75 sqn lost 12 pilots KIA and lost 22 aircraft but had shot down 17 enemy a/c, probably destroyed 4 more and damaged a furthur 29.
> The P-40's also played a major role in the defeat of the Japanese at the Battle Of Milne Bay. The Zero might have been superior but they certainly didn't have it all their way. On top of this the P-40's also had considerable success defending Darwin from Japanese fighters and bombers in 1942.



Two myths about the P-40 were that it was slow and not maneuverable. Compared to later American and German aircraft with 400+ mph top speeds, a mere 345 mph at 15,000 feet (the top speed of the P-40C) doesn't seem that impressive. But remember, in 1940-41 the Warhawk's top speed essentially matched that of the Spitfire 1A (346 mph at 15,000 feet) and Bf-109E (348 mph at 14,560 feet), and surpassed the A6M-21 Zero (331 mph at 14,930 feet) and Hawker Hurricane II (327 mph at 18,000 feet). Plus if was so inferior, explain this list of P-40 Aces shooting down mainly BF109s & Zero's.

http://www.p40warhawk.com/WW2_Era/Aces/Aces.htm

The A.V.G./Flying Tigers, had an 11-1 Kill Ratio, if I did my calculations right, against the Japanese in Chinese Air Space, downing 268 A/C while only loosing 15 of their own in combat.

The P-40 had a Superior Dive Speed of 480mph, but was noted to be able to exceed 500mph w/o a problem, it also had better Lateral Maneuverability, a better Role Rate, a quick reacting pilot could use a Snap Role to bring his guns to bare in front of the quicker turning Axis Fighter & it would fly into the P-40's burst shredding it, better Armour for the pilot, better Structural Integrity, which could exceed 9Gs, read the account below, Firepower was considered on par to the BF109 & the Zeros, its Single Speed Supercharger caused a Slow Climb Rate, 4.1 mintues to 5,000ft & Poor Performance above 15,000ft, but.....

While flying top cover for supply planes inbound for Tobruk, Pilot Officer Clive Caldwell, Australia's top-scoring Ace encountered two Bf-109's led by the 114-victory ace Werner Schroer who ambushed him. The German planes punched 108 machine gun bullets and five 20mm shells into the hapless fighter, damaging its instrument panel, controls, tail, wings, and wounding Caldwell in the back, shoulder and leg.
Instead of crashing to the ground, the Tomahawk managed to stay airborne. And instead of attempting to escape, the Sydney-born Caldwell turned into his attackers and returned fire. He shot down Schroer's wing-man, unnerving Schroer to the point that he ran for home. The Australian Ace made it home. Caldwell downed 20 & 1/2 of his Kills out of his 28 & 1/2 Kills flying the Kittyhawk IIa. 

In Italy on 1 July 1943, 22 P-40's of the U.S. 325th Fighter Group made a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109's surprised the Checker Tails, engaging them in between 9,000ft to 12,000ft where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Luftwaffe lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back.

A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40's were bounced by thirty-five BF109's. The Luftwaffe limped home after losing 21 of their own while the Checker Tails came through with only one loss. The Luftwaffe lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109's) to the pilots of the Checkered Tail P-40's while shooting down only seventeen of the 325th.

P-40 Ac

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Mar 17, 2017)




----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 17, 2017)

Col. Sir Harry Flashman said:


> In Italy on 1 July 1943, 22 P-40's of the U.S. 325th Fighter Group made a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109's surprised the Checker Tails, engaging them in between 9,000ft to 12,000ft where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Luftwaffe lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back.
> 
> A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40's were bounced by thirty-five BF109's. The Luftwaffe limped home after losing 21 of their own while the Checker Tails came through with only one loss. The Luftwaffe lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109's) to the pilots of the Checkered Tail P-40's while shooting down only seventeen of the 325th.



We've dealt with the erroneous information about the 325th FG previously in this thread. To summarize:

The event on 30 July 1943 was nowhere near as one-sided and the numerical advantage was with the P-40s.

In reality, there were 36 P-40s from the 325th FG (20 from 317th Fighter Squadron and 16 from the 319th Fighter Squadron). The Luftwaffe serviceability report for 29 July reported a total of 25 serviceable Me109s available (there were only 34 present in total according to the orbat) so there couldn't have been 35 Bf109s in the sky during the engagement. The Luftwaffe serviceability report for 29 July 1943 is as follows:
II / JG51 had 5 Bf109s of which 2 were serviceable
III / JG77 had 29 Bf109s, 23 of which were serviceable

Only JG77 was involved in this engagement - JG51 didn't fly on 30 July (no surprise since they only had 2 serviceable aircraft). One aircraft of JG77 was engaged in a reconnaissance mission away from the area of the combat with the 325th (it, too, was shot down but by other Allied fighters) leaving a max of 22 Bf109s for the engagement with the 325th.

The 325th FG flew the sweep from 08:00 to 11:05, and made claims from 09:45 to 10:15. Final claims tally was:
- 21 Bf 109s destroyed
- 3 Bf 109s probably destroyed
- 1 Mc. 202 probably destroyed
- 3 Bf 109s damaged

III/JG 77 scrambled from Chilivani at 09:25. Four Bf109s from the Gruppe were shot down, with one pilot killed and three wounded. A first-hand account from Eduard Isken mentions the presence of Lightnings as well. III / JG77 pilots claimed five P-40s shot down between 09:40 and 10:10.

Only one of the 36 American aircraft involved was lost on this mission, and none were damaged. Lt. Bob Sederberg failed to return, and was taken prisoner.

Clearly, the P-40s came off better in the fight but even if the entire Gruppe strength was involved, they were still at a 39% numerical disadvantage. For the record, the sole MC202 claimed as Probably Destroyed was mis-identification. No Italian fighters reported engagements on this date in the vicinity so we can't make a case for misidentification of C202s for Me109s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 17, 2017)

Col. Sir Harry Flashman said:


> Because everyone or it seems so, is disparaging the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, here's something to read & mull over before doing so again.
> This article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the P-40 was a performance contemporary of the Spitfire I, 109E, Hurricane I, etc.
> THE CURTISS P-40 WARHAWK
> By Patrick Masell



Hello, and welcome to the forum. 
Methinks that you'd see that people here don't dismiss the P-40 lightly. Most of them also lift an eyebrow when phrases like 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' are posted, me included. Thus I'll post the relevant parts that are going a bit or more over-board, along with my comment. 1st being that, by the time P-40 was 1st delivered to the USAAC serivce (summer 1940), the European fighter listed were old news, with new or improved models coming out.




> There are three main reasons for this misconception. For one, the P-40 was based on an older aircraft, the P-36. The forward section and the liquid cooled Allison V-12 engine (V-1710) were new, but from the firewall to tail it was exactly the same as the P-36. Because of this, the P-40 is thought to have been obsolescent from its inception. Its naval contemporary, the F4F Wildcat (which is described as being a better opponent for the Zero by World War II magazine) was based on a biplane design! Of course, few authorities mention that. The P-36 airframe wasn't obsolete, merely proven successful. It was actually very sturdy.



As above - most people here don't believe that P-36 and/or P-40 were obsolescent when 1st delivered.



> Secondly, newer fighters, including the P-38, P-47, and P-51 overshadowed it. Finally, its faults (and it had some--all aircraft do) were exaggerated to the point that it seemed impossible for the P-40 to succeed against any enemy aircraft. Although it couldn't out maneuver the Zero (the Warhawk's main foe in the Pacific Theater), neither could the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lighting, Thunderbolt, Mustang, Wildcat, or Corsair, but that is never mentioned.



All of those fighters listed (P-40 included) were able to out-roll the Zero above certain speeds, the P-40 probably being the champion between the listed A/C. Rate of roll 'belongs' to maneuverability of any given aircraft.



> Several companies threw their hat in the ring with various aircraft designs. Curtiss offered their P-40 design; Lockheed came with their P-38 design, and Bell with the P-39. When Curtiss won the contract, the other companies created an uproar. They believed the P-40 was obsolescent, since much of it was based on an older design. As previously explained, from the firewall back it was the same as the previous P-36, but the engine and other vital components were new, which increased performance dramatically.



There was no uproar from other companies. 
(X)P-38 was awarded by a on June 23rd 1937, (X)P-40 was awared on July 30th 1937, (X)P-39 was awarded by October 7th 1937.
It was engine choice that increased the performance drastically vs. P-36, other vital components remained the same as with P-36.



> The Army wanted a sure-fire design. The twin-engine P-38 was too radical to be certain of success. It probably didn't help when the P-38 prototype crashed. One drawback to the P-38 was that it was not designed to be mass-produced. It was designed as a special purpose, high altitude interceptor. The P-38 simply could not be produced in sufficient quantity in time. Also, at the time, the Army did not foresee the need for great numbers of high altitude fighters that later became apparent.



Oh, the Army did foresee the need for great numbers of high altitude fighters in late 1930s. Hence the turbos on the Airacuda, XP-37, P-38, XP-39, P-43. Beauty of the P-40 was that it was still judged as very useful fighter, and commonality with P-36 indeed increased the odds of getting those useful fighters in good numbers during the short peroid of time - a quality the fighters I've listed were not able to match.



> They thought a fighter's main role was ground support, and found the P-40 well suited for the job. Besides, if the Army had chosen the P-38, American pilots would have initially been outmatched in dogfights with the more nimble Japanese Zero, and probably taken as many losses as the P-40 did. In that case, I would be sticking up for the misunderstood Lockheed P-38!



The 1st sentence hits away from the mark. 
The P-40 was a fighter, it won a contract for a fighter, it was issued to the fighter units, and was ordered abroad as a fighter. A pair of LMGs, a pair of HMGs and no bombs = lousy ground support. The Army actually choosen the P-38 before they chosen P-40. The P-38 was a faster fighter than P-40, especially at altitude, with greater range/radius and firepower - trying to engage in a dogfight with a nimble aircraft would've been a faulty decision by the P-38's pilot. 



> Two myths about the P-40 were that it was slow and not maneuverable. Compared to later American and German aircraft with 400+ mph top speeds, a mere 345 mph at 15,000 feet (the top speed of the P-40C) doesn't seem that impressive. But remember, in 1940-41 the Warhawk's top speed essentially matched that of the Spitfire 1A (346 mph at 15,000 feet) and Bf-109E (348 mph at 14,560 feet), and surpassed the A6M-21 Zero (331 mph at 14,930 feet) and Hawker Hurricane II (327 mph at 18,000 feet).



There is 1940, and there is 1941. 
The P-40C, 1st delivered in March 1941, is a contemporary of Spitfire V and Bf 109F1 and F2. Both of whome were capable for 370+ mph, and, what is of about equal importance for the ongoing European air war, they were especially faster as altitude increased. They also climbed much better. 
Indeed, the Zero and Hurricane were slower than P-40 in 1940 and '41; Hurricane was probably always slower than P-40, being an older design (both shortcoming and advantage for a weapon system).
If we want to choose fast US fighters in 1941, those are P-38 and P-39C, 370+ mph; obviously too late for 1940.



> The specifications for the numerous P-40E-1 of 1941 (also Hawk 87A-4 and Kittyhawk IA), which are similar to the entire series of P-40E, K, and M models, are as follows (taken from The Complete Book of Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough): Max speed, 362 mph at 15,000 feet; Time to 5,000 feet, 2.4 minutes; Max range, 850 miles at 207 mph (with drop tank); Armament, six .50 inch (12.7mm) wing mounted machine guns; Empty weight, 6,900 pounds; Loaded weight, 8,400 pounds; Span, 37 feet 4 inches; Length, 31 feet 9 inches; Height, 12 feet 4 inches; Wing area, 236 square feet.



This is allpying to wide a brush for the P-40 models. The P-40E and K were lucky to top 340 mph at 15000 ft. The P-40M was in a better positon due to the improved model of the V-1710 installed, with better altitude performance. The range was 1100 miles for the -E with 75 gal drop tank.
If I may suggest the book named 'America's hundred thousand' as a premier resource for US fighters. The wwiiaircraftperformance.org is also a great resource.



> ... It took time, but by early December 1941 the A.V.G., with ferocious looking shark's jaws painted on their P-40's (an idea copied from the RAF's No. 112 squadron), was ready for action. By this time 33 planes had already been lost, mostly due to pilot error.
> 
> Their first big chance came on Dec. 8, a day after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. They attacked ground targets and engaged enemy aircraft in defense of the Burma Road, China's only supply line to the West. For the next 6 months this rag-tag band of volunteer pilots racked up an amazing record against overwhelming enemy numbers, earning the A.V.G. the nickname "Flying Tigers".



The 1st combat was on December 20th 1941, not Dec 8th.



> After the war, the Truman Committee investigated why the P-40 was used until the end of the war, even when higher performance fighters were available. They concluded that the Army did not continue to order P-40s due to "outside influence." Perhaps the obvious answer is the right one: the USAAF ordered so many P-40s because they did a heck of a good job!



Curtiss botched up the license production of P-47s, this is why the P-40s were still being produced from 1943 on. Let's recall that neither USAF nor RAF used P-40s in the ETO, where real performance at all altitudes was expected vs. the Luftwaffe.



> The Second World War ended in September of 1945, but the P-40's career did not. Although the U.S. Army Air Force retired the P-40, it continued to serve with the air forces of smaller nations into the early 50s. Eventually, age and changing times got to the old war-horse and, like all of its piston-engine peers, it had to yield the skies to the jet age.



The post war carrer of the P-40 was far shorter than of Spitfire, Bf 109, Fw 190 or P-51.



> It is unfortunate that, even with all its victories, the P-40 appears on many people's "worst fighters of WW II" list. At best it is considered mediocre.



Anyone that puts the P-40 on the 'worst fighters list' has plenty, plenty of reading to do.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 17, 2017)

If I may add to Tomo's remarks. The US, in a pilot's manual dated 1943 (it could have been Dec, I don't know) was telling pilots training on the P-40 that *no new units *would be formed using P-40s and indeed in late 1943 and 1944 existing US P-40 units were being re-equipped with other fighters as fast as the supply situation would allow. The P-40 was kept in production in 1943/44 primarily for lend lease, with fighter trainer and replacement aircraft for units that couldn't convert to newer fighters being the secondary reasons. In 1944 the last few hundred P-40s off the Production line went straight to the scrap yards. 

I have no idea where the oft repeated story of the P-40 being designed for ground support comes from. The P-40 used the highest altitude rated engine available in the US *in production form* at the time. It may have been purchased to _accompany _ground attack planes, the USAAC having ordered about 190 A-20s in May-July of 1939. The older P-35 carried a much higher bomb load than the early P-40s did. Combine that with the *fact *that the USAAC had switched from liquid cooled engines to air cooled engines for ground attack aircraft back in 1932 and would buy NO liquid cooled attack aircraft until the A-36 in April of 1942 and that was more of a funding trick to keep the Mustang production line rolling than a real desire to shift back to liquid cooled engines. 

The P-40 certainly did a lot of good work in the early part of the war and is often under rated but the Army _never _intended it to be the US's primary fighter. It was _always _the interim fighter that could be built quickly to equip the expanding air corp and replace even older equipment while the fighters the Army really wanted were de-bugged and placed in production.
Please remember that in 1939 there were only *3-4 *production lines in the US building fighter aircraft (or in existence having completed an order) Bell had built less than 2 dozen aircraft in the companies existence. Lockheed was working flat out to build Hudsons for the RAF. 
Only Republic and Brewster had actual production lines for fighters in the spring of 1939 and perhaps a discrete curtain should be drawn over their ability to deliver large numbers of aircraft in a timely fashion. One reason for the P-36 order being the slow delivery of P-35s several years earlier. Grumman had gotten an order for 27 F3F biplanes back in 1938 as "fillers" until the F2A and F4F could be developed. first production F4F isn't delivered until spring of 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greg Boeser (Mar 17, 2017)

14th AF pilots clamored for P-51s even if only the P-51A for the obvious advantages of speed and range. The one shortcoming the P-51 had over the P-40 was the Mustang's cooling system was more vulnerable to damage. The P-40 had everything tucked up under the engine, the P-51 had the radiator in the mid-fuselage with plumbing running between it and the engine creating a larger area of vulnerability.
I would disregard one-sided kill ratio claims, unless you are willing to accept the claims of their opponents as equally valid.
In John Ford's _Flying Tigers, _he matches combat reports of AVG and IJAAF to illustrate the often wildly inaccurate claims of both sides.
Luca Ruffato and Michael Claringbould in the excellent _Eagles of the Southern Sky, _compare claims and losses involving the Tainan Air Group in New Guinea in 1942. 
Christopher Shores has spent a lifetime researching and bringing into perspective the claims and losses of the various air forces in many theaters. One thing that stands out is that the Luftwaffe claims tend to be far more accurate than anyone else's. Though the arrival of the "Curtisses" in North Africa was initially anticipated with some trepidation by the Luftwaffe, they quickly found that the Tomahawk was not superior to the older Bf-109E and clearly inferior to the Bf-109F. It didn't help that the WDAF had yet to adopt the more flexible "finger four" formation, relying on the inflexible "vic" and other tactically inferior formations. Line astern with weavers, anyone?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 18, 2017)

Col. Sir Harry Flashman said:


> ...
> The P-40 had a Superior Dive Speed of 480mph, but was noted to be able to exceed 500mph w/o a problem, it also had better Lateral Maneuverability, a better Role Rate, a quick reacting pilot could use a Snap Role to bring his guns to bare in front of the quicker turning Axis Fighter & it would fly into the P-40's burst shredding it, better Armour for the pilot, better Structural Integrity, which could exceed 9Gs, read the account below, Firepower was considered on par to the BF109 & the Zeros,* its Single Speed Supercharger caused a Slow Climb Rate, 4.1 mintues to 5,000ft & Poor Performance above 15,000ft, but.....*



(my bold)
A bit on this old chestnut. The number of supercharger speeds was just a small part of reasoning to why P-40 was underperforming at some altitude belts, especially the rate of climb being poor. The P-39, P-51 and P-51A, Spitfire I/II/V and MiG-1/3 used single-speed superchargers but were faster and sometimes climbed better than P-40. The 2-speed supercharged Packard Merlin, with much greater altitude power than the early V-1710s, was unable to turn the P-40F/L into a performer. Conversely, the P-40 was sometimes out-pacing the aircraft with multi-speed supercharged engines, and sometimes even the fighters with 2-stage supercharged engines, like the F4F. 
So what are the other reasons? The P-40 was heavier than most of the listed aircraft, mostly due to big (= heavy ) fuel tankage, heavy armament package from E model on, considerable strength, and useful protection. Despite all of the listed heavy items, the powerplant was barely upgraded during the life time, ie. no big V12, no 2-stage V12 (apart from prototypes), not even a big radial engine. Let's recall that a good part of Zero and Oscar performance was due to absence of protection for pilot and fuel tanks; once the protection and armament was improved on the Zero, the speed and RoC took a hit. 
P-40 was a much bigger A/C than Bf 109, MC.202 or Soviet fighters, it was even biggere than the Fw 190 - size matters here, and big weight does make aircraft under-perform. Again, conversely the still bigger Hurricane and F4F were in further peformance disadvantage, despite the engines of better power above 10000 ft.
So unless the P-40 gets the 2-stage supercharged V-1650 or V-1710, or the protection, firepower and range are sacrified, it will remain underperformer from 1941 on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 18, 2017)

Again a very good post by Tomo. I would note a typo or mistake in the bolded part. 

"...*caused a Slow Climb Rate, 4.1 mintues to 5,000ft...*"
Any P-40 that took 4.1 minutes to climb to 5000ft was in serious need of engine work, needed the blockage taken out of the throttle/linkage or was carrying a higher than normal load of bombs.
Figures from a pilots manual for the P-40D-E are even at 8700lbs 1.5 minutes using full throttle (3000rpm and 44.6in map) while there is a listing of 4.4 minutes to 5000ft it is also at 8700lbs but using 2300rpm and 28in map. 
8700lbs would include a full 52 gallon drop tank or a 500lb bomb with slightly reduced internal fuel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 18, 2017)

Soviet experience .... 

P-40 Recovery in Russia

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (Mar 18, 2017)




----------



## Col. Sir Harry Flashman (Mar 19, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> (my bold)
> A bit on this old chestnut. The number of supercharger speeds was just a small part of reasoning to why P-40 was underperforming at some altitude belts, especially the rate of climb being poor. The P-39, P-51 and P-51A, Spitfire I/II/V and MiG-1/3 used single-speed superchargers but were faster and sometimes climbed better than P-40. The 2-speed supercharged Packard Merlin, with much greater altitude power than the early V-1710s, was unable to turn the P-40F/L into a performer. Conversely, the P-40 was sometimes out-pacing the aircraft with multi-speed supercharged engines, and sometimes even the fighters with 2-stage supercharged engines, like the F4F.
> So what are the other reasons? The P-40 was heavier than most of the listed aircraft, mostly due to big (= heavy ) fuel tankage, heavy armament package from E model on, considerable strength, and useful protection. Despite all of the listed heavy items, the powerplant was barely upgraded during the life time, ie. no big V12, no 2-stage V12 (apart from prototypes), not even a big radial engine. Let's recall that a good part of Zero and Oscar performance was due to absence of protection for pilot and fuel tanks; once the protection and armament was improved on the Zero, the speed and RoC took a hit.
> P-40 was a much bigger A/C than Bf 109, MC.202 or Soviet fighters, it was even biggere than the Fw 190 - size matters here, and big weight does make aircraft under-perform. Again, conversely the still bigger Hurricane and F4F were in further peformance disadvantage, despite the engines of better power above 10000 ft.
> So unless the P-40 gets the 2-stage supercharged V-1650 or V-1710, or the protection, firepower and range are sacrified, it will remain underperformer from 1941 on.




I know all about the Weight to H.P. ratio problem & that the U.S.A.A.C. Brass Hats just kept piling on the weight w/o properly upgrading the engines in the P-40's to compensate for it. The U.S. Navy Brass Hats did the same thing to the Brewster Buffalo F2's as well, so badly in fact, that the Landing Gear had to be Strengthened & the Finns were the only users of B-339's that saw the stupidity of it & did something about it. so much so that the majority of the Finnish Aces got their triple Ace-hoods flying the B-339's against what ever Fighters the Soviets threw at them.

One of the first things Gen. George's F.E.A.F. pilots did after the initial attack by the I.J. Air Forces, was to lighten their P-40's by removing the O2 systems (they couldn't get to the altitude of the Betty's & the Oscars always came down to play), the Radio Gear (the radio towers were all destroyed during the 1st air raid, so no comm at all including advanced air raid warnings via radio), 2 of the 6 .50's in the E's (Oscar's flamed nicely w/ just 4 .50's) & used bare minimum Armour for the protection of the pilots.

If Gen. George had not been killed by a Ground Looping A/C just as he was disembarking from the C-47 that had flown him & his hand picked U.S.A.C.C. Officers flown out of Mindanao, he would had Championed for the Field Mods that his Pilots & Ground Crews had come up w/ to make the P-40 Lighter, have a better Climb Rate & be able to Turn Inside the Axis Fighters. 
It is also my understanding from my 20+ years of research by reading everything I could get my hands on, along w/ what I've found on the 'Net, that some of the M.T.O. Squadrons of the R.A.F./Commonwealth & U.S.A.C.C. pilots & ground crews experimented w/ this as well. What the Brass Hats didn't know, wouldn't hurt them.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2017)

Col. Sir Harry Flashman said:


> I know all about the Weight to H.P. ratio problem & that the U.S.A.A.C. Brass Hats just kept piling on the weight w/o properly upgrading the engines in the P-40's to compensate for it. The U.S. Navy Brass Hats did the same thing to the Brewster Buffalo F2's as well, so badly in fact, that the Landing Gear had to be Strengthened & the Finns were the only users of B-339's that saw the stupidity of it & did something about it. so much so that the majority of the Finnish Aces got their triple Ace-hoods flying the B-339's against what ever Fighters the Soviets threw at them.



Indeed, the 'Brass hats' were trying to stick, weight-wise, almost about as much on the P-39 and P-40 as it was the case with P-38 that have had twice the power, and perhaps three time the power above 20000 ft. The new engine models were being installed as they became available, but it was not enough vs. Luftwaffe, even if it was against the Japanese.
The USAAF neglection of (X)P-51 was also a factor why the P-40 went into combat well after it's sell date. Ditto for not having the second source of P-38s.



> One of the first things Gen. George's F.E.A.F. pilots did after the initial attack by the I.J. Air Forces, was to lighten their P-40's by removing the O2 systems (they couldn't get to the altitude of the Betty's & the Oscars always came down to play), the Radio Gear (the radio towers were all destroyed during the 1st air raid, so no comm at all including advanced air raid warnings via radio), 2 of the 6 .50's in the E's (Oscar's flamed nicely w/ just 4 .50's) & used bare minimum Armour for the protection of the pilots.



Thank you for pointing to the Gen. George.
The FEAF rarely encoutered Oscars, their main opponent were Zeroes. Unfortunately, trying to strip the P-40s from those items lowers their combat value vs. LW had it been atempted, even if it will be workable in some instances. No radios = no communications between pilots (and ground control, moot point here). The Japanese learned hard way just how radios were useful during the Battle of Midway. Indeed, the Zeros in 1941-43 were vulnerable to the MG fire.



> If Gen. George had not been killed by a Ground Looping A/C just as he was disembarking from the C-47 that had flown him & his hand picked U.S.A.C.C. Officers flown out of Mindanao, he would had Championed for the Field Mods that his Pilots & Ground Crews had come up w/ to make the P-40 Lighter, have a better Climb Rate & be able to Turn Inside the Axis Fighters.
> It is also my understanding from my 20+ years of research by reading everything I could get my hands on, along w/ what I've found on the 'Net, that some of the M.T.O. Squadrons of the R.A.F./Commonwealth & U.S.A.C.C. pilots & ground crews experimented w/ this as well. What the Brass Hats didn't know, wouldn't hurt them.



Soviets were also renown (notorious?) for stripping parts from the Western aircraft they got, in order to achieve a gain in performance, mostly in rate of climb. Gen. George was flown by Lockheed C-40 to Darwin.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2017)

Oh boy..........

"the Finns were the only users of *B-339*'s that saw the stupidity of it & did something about it. so much so that the majority of the Finnish Aces got their triple Ace-hoods flying the *B-339*'s"

Finns didn't do much of anything, they flew *B-239*s, which were the F2A-1 released from navy contracts for early delivery to Finland. 
The Finns didn't take out the armor, self sealing fuel tanks, geared engines or big propellers. the Planes never had them. The weight additions didn't happen until later models which the Finns never got. Finns did add rudimentary back armor. 

I wonder what the internet hue and cry would be today if the "Brass Hats" had sent hundreds or several thousand US and British pilots into combat in fighters without self-sealing tanks, bullet proof windscreens and pilot armor????

As to lighting up the P-40 by leaving things out. 
Oxygen system on a P-40C.................93lbs
radio/communications P40E.................74lbs
BP glass and armor....P-40E...............111lbs
Pair of 50cal guns on P-40.................160lbs
ammo for the extra guns......................141lbs

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 19, 2017)



Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 19, 2017)

As I remember from posts here Hurricanes were sent to France without armour and not all fuel tanks could be made self sealing, although there wasnt much of a hue and cry with the public pilots installed armour themselves against advice about CoG issues.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Mar 19, 2017)

In 1939, the only fighters that had armor installed were Soviet I-16s. Armor began being installed in most western fighters in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2017)

What the standard of protection was for American, British and German fighters in 1939-40 and what it was in late 1941/early 1942 (when the Americans were engaging the Japanese) are two rather different things.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 19, 2017)

I would also note that there were _two _attempts to lighten the P-40. Some of the Merlin powered "L" model were referred to as the "Gypsy Rose Lee" model after a famous strip tease artist of the time. Mainly two .50s taken out and ammo somewhat restricted four the other four. One fuel tank taken out, perhaps a few other small changes. The early N models were a somewhat more serious attempt. Which was enabled by the development of aluminium radiators and oil coolers instead of copper ones, the use of magnesium wheels, the usual pull two guns and restrict ammo, the elimination of the forward fuel tank and the change to a manual starter (no electric start) and either a smaller battery or no battery. These changes were of such importance to P-40 performance in the field that some of the using units ( and there weren't that many of these stripper models built) added the batteries and electric starters back in along with the forward fuel tank and in some cases the No. 5 & 6 guns. 
Oxygen equipment was a "option" on later P-40s and when used had to counted as part of the payload. 
I would note that taking out the oxygen equipment in P-40s used by the FEAF was also possible or allowed because the oxygen equipment plant for filling the O2 tanks was either defective or none operational for much of the campaign, in any case O2 was not available at any of the alternative air fields according to some accounts. 
Pulling the O2 equipment from the fighters _if they had_ oxygen supplies is hardly an example of brilliant front line thinking since it means you have zero chance of intercepting the bombers which is the primary goal. "Playing" with the fighter escort while allowing the bombers to bomb unmolested is hardly a good long term tactic for air defense. In other theaters (or in the far east at later dates) the P-40s could be flown without O2 equipment because the "Brass hats" were also supplying other O2 equipped fighters to fly either top cover for the P-40s or to perform the high altitude intercepts. Comparing use of P-40s when being flown from bases where there were Spitfires or F4Fs or P-38s/P-47s to provide top cover to earlier days when it was P-40s or nothing (P-40s and Hurricanes) doesn't take into account the full situation.


----------



## grampi (Mar 20, 2017)

I couldn't see a P-40 being preferred over a P-51 for any reason...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Balljoint (Mar 20, 2017)

Maybe it’s another thread; but I’ve long been curious as to how the P-40’s bastard offspring, the P-51, attained its performance despite being a bit porky. Of course the high altitude zip came from the Merlin 2x2 supercharging. And sleeker aerodynamics helped. But the Mustang seemed to be able to more or less deal with the much lighter LW fighters in hairball mode. And to do so with enough onboard fuel to get home while toting maybe a ton of extra tare weight.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 20, 2017)

"And sleeker aerodynamics helped"

A *LOT. *A P-51 using an Allison engine, the same dash number as used in a P-40E, was 40-50mph faster at most altitudes. 
This means, at any given speed, the P-51 had more surplus power to put towards climbing or sustaining speed in a turn.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2017)

Balljoint said:


> Maybe it’s another thread; but I’ve long been curious as to how the P-40’s bastard offspring, the P-51, attained its performance despite being a bit porky. Of course the high altitude zip came from the Merlin 2x2 supercharging. And sleeker aerodynamics helped. But the Mustang seemed to be able to more or less deal with the much lighter LW fighters in hairball mode. And to do so with enough onboard fuel to get home while toting maybe a ton of extra tare weight.



Bastard offspring?? The P-51 have had nothing to do with P-40, bar engine and armament. The aerodynamics applied on the P-51 were one, if not two generations ahead, and that shows.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 20, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> "And sleeker aerodynamics helped"
> 
> A *LOT. *A P-51 using an Allison engine, the same dash number as used in a P-40E, was 40-50mph faster at most altitudes.
> This means, at any given speed, the P-51 had more surplus power to put towards climbing or sustaining speed in a turn.


It also means that you can break off when disadvantaged, I have never read of P51s forming Lufbery circles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Mar 20, 2017)

Balljoint said:


> Maybe it’s another thread; but I’ve long been curious as to how the P-40’s bastard offspring, the P-51, attained its performance despite being a bit porky. Of course the high altitude zip came from the Merlin 2x2 supercharging. And sleeker aerodynamics helped. But the Mustang seemed to be able to more or less deal with the much lighter LW fighters in hairball mode. And to do so with enough onboard fuel to get home while toting maybe a ton of extra tare weight.


How does the P51 come to being referred to as the bastard offspring of the P40? It was specifically designed to be better than the P40 and it was, as Tomo has said it was 2 generations ahead in aerodynamics. Don't be fooled by the P51s apparent bulk, the cooling system was a major part of its low drag set up.

When the P51 was used as an escort just by getting into a "hairball" even without making a kill it has done its job.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Mar 20, 2017)

Two most favorite WW2 planes for me are the P-38 and P-51. I like the P-40 as well but they are in no way I can tell related.


----------



## Balljoint (Mar 20, 2017)

My thought was that Great Britain was in the market for P-40s. NAA, finding little interest in B-25s, upsold the British on an “improved” P-40, provided the improved model could be rolled out in 60 days as I recall. The “improved P-40” i.e. P-51 airframe did roll out on schedule, but took a good bit longer to fly, and even much longer to find its niche.
 
While the P-51 was sleek and had a laminar flow(ish) wing, the gross weight would seem to impose a substantial induced drag penalty. But I’m not arguing with proven success.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 20, 2017)

Balljoint said:


> My thought was that Great Britain was in the market for P-40s. NAA, finding little interest in B-25s, upsold the British on an “improved” P-40, provided the improved model could be rolled out in 60 days as I recall. The “improved P-40” i.e. P-51 airframe did roll out on schedule, but took a good bit longer to fly, and even much longer to find its niche.
> While the P-51 was sleek and had a laminar flow(ish) wing, the gross weight would seem to impose a substantial induced drag penalty. But I’m not arguing with proven success.


The British ordered and received 620 Mustangs (P 51A) and would have liked more. The Allison engine limited their effectiveness in Europe because a Bf109 could always climb out of trouble. The gross weight due to a larger air frame was due in part to its single major advantage over other fighters, it had a large internal fuel load and room to crowbar even more in. Even without extra internal and external tanks it became the first allied single seat fighter to fly over Germany.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The British ordered and received 620 Mustangs (P 51A) and would have liked more. The Allison engine limited their effectiveness in Europe because a Bf109 could always climb out of trouble. The gross weight due to a larger air frame was due in part to its single major advantage over other fighters, it had a large internal fuel load and room to crowbar even more in. Even without extra internal and external tanks it became the first allied single seat fighter to fly over Germany.



Sorry to be a nomenclature Nazi, but Mustang (or Mustang I) = P-51.
The Mustang II = P-51A.
NAA was 1st producing the Mustang I, then A-36, then Mustang II. The Mk.II (has drop tanks, less guns, better engine, better performance) went into action in Sept 1943, more than a year after the Mustang I.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 20, 2017)

tomo pauk said:


> Sorry to be a nomenclature Nazi, but Mustang (or Mustang I) = P-51.
> The Mustang II = P-51A.
> NAA was 1st producing the Mustang I, then A-36, then Mustang II. The Mk.II (has drop tanks, less guns, better engine, better performance) went into action in Sept 1943, more than a year after the Mustang I.


For a nomenclature nazi the Mustang/P51 is very fertile ground, machines were ordered by the British who then ran out of money and Lend Lease kicked in and then Peral Harbor happened. Some changes of identity seem to me to be purely to do with who pays.

Anyway......for a bastard child it turned out quite well.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 20, 2017)

First 620/618 were paid for by the British had -39 (8.80 supercharger gear) engines, four .50s (two in fuselage and one in each wing) and four .303s.
then came 150 lend lease P-51s with -39 engines but four 20mm cannon. 57 were kept by the US after Pearl harbor.
Then came the 500 A-36As US paid for and operated by the US. Had the -87 engine (low altitude) and two .50s in fuselage (like the Mustang I) and four .50s in the wing.
Followed by the 310 P-51As with -81 engines (9.60 supercharger gear) and just four .50 cal guns in the wing, British got 50 lend lease.
Nomenclature tells you engine and armament in addition to who paid.

Was _only _a bastard child in the sense that the USAAF looked at it as NIH. British wanted all they could get and were still operating 2 squadrons of Allison powered planes at VE day. Last Allison powered Mustang left the production line two years earlier. Not bad for a bastard child 

BTW, the British got 1826 (?) Merlin powered Mustangs lend lease, does not include 100 sent to Australia as kits.


----------



## Balljoint (Mar 21, 2017)

Among the circumstances driving Mustang development was the fact that Merlins were not about to be shipped to the U.S., and reasonably so. Until Packard was able to ram up Merlin production the challenge was a mission for a medium altitude, long range plane. Reconnaissance and the A-36 were stop gap missions. During the Merlin ram up the bomber generals realized that unescorted, daylight bombing had rather sever drawbacks. And so the Mustang found its calling.


----------



## Token (Mar 21, 2017)

Greg Boeser said:


> In 1939, the only fighters that had armor installed were Soviet I-16s. Armor began being installed in most western fighters in 1940.



I am not sure about that. I think the trend was already in place before that and it accelerated at about that time. For example, the P-26 Peashooter had pilot protection armor from the first production item on (1933). The P-40 was envisioned from the start to have some armor behind the pilot, although they were definitely up armored later in the series. 

T!


----------



## varsity07840 (Mar 21, 2017)

Col. Sir Harry Flashman said:


> One of the first things Gen. George's F.E.A.F. pilots did after the initial attack by the I.J. Air Forces, was to lighten their P-40's by removing the O2 systems (they couldn't get to the altitude of the Betty's & the Oscars always came down to play), the Radio Gear (the radio towers were all destroyed during the 1st air raid, so no comm at all including advanced air raid warnings via radio), 2 of the 6 .50's in the E's (Oscar's flamed nicely w/ just 4 .50's) & used bare minimum Armour for the protection of the pilots.



I respectful disagree with your references to F.E.A.F and it's P-40s. I have been a student the AAF in the Philippines for almost 50 years and I have never read from any source any mention of the modifications to P-40s that you have described. Aside from the inaccuracies, the need for them would have become superfluous by the end of the first week of the war when aerial combat, especially interception attempts, virtually ended. As noted, the Ki-43 Oscar was a JAAF aircraft and did not see action in the PI. All JAAF fighters were Ki-27s. Several pilots, notably George Kiser, a former 17th Pursuit Squadron pilot, did remove 2 guns from his P-40 while flying out of Australia with the 49th Pursuit(later Fighter) Group. Aside from the removal of 2 guns, no other weight saving measures were taken or anticipated in Java or Australia. The idea of removing armor would have be abhorrent to pilots who were well aware of its value since the beginning of the war.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------

