# P-40 vs. Hurricane



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Well since we have all come to the conclusion that the P-40 was to the US as the Hurricane was to the British lets see what is the baddest of the underated old hags!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 25, 2005)

Id have to say the Hurricane was better than the P-40..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

I do not have an opinion on the 2 yet. 

For historical reasons I am leaning at the Hurricane.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 25, 2005)

I prefer the Hurricane, it did well in the Battle of Britain and was upgraded and become a ground attack aircraft amoung other incarnations.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 25, 2005)

Look at what the P-40 did in Africa and the PTO with Chennault and the Tigers...


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

Hey look, the Brits prefer the Hurri and the Americans prefer the P-40. Wow! Never saw that one coming!

I think it would be difficult to pick a clear cut winner. Performance was similar and low and medium altitudes (above that the Hurri would be preferred except perhaps against the Merlin-engined P-40F). What I have seen suggests the Hurri was more maneuverable. P-40 probably has the edge in a dive and in firepower.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Hey look, the Brits prefer the Hurri and the Americans prefer the P-40. Wow! Never saw that one coming!
> 
> I think it would be difficult to pick a clear cut winner. Performance was similar and low and medium altitudes (above that the Hurri would be preferred except perhaps against the Merlin-engined P-40F). What I have seen suggests the Hurri was more maneuverable. P-40 probably has the edge in a dive and in firepower.



Said perfectly - besides, the Brits bought P-40s, that says something!


----------



## Glider (Sep 25, 2005)

We also took the Buffalo, which simply proves that desperate times bring desperate measures.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 25, 2005)

Are you actually comparing the P-40 with the Buffalo?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2005)

Glider said:


> We also took the Buffalo, which simply proves that desperate times bring desperate measures.



I know, just kidding!  

I think we're all going to stick to our nationalistic lines on this one. I'd go with the P-40, roll rate, dive speed and and ruggedness (although I give the Hurricane high marks on that). I think speeds at low altitude will be about the same, the Hurricane has it at altitude and probably acceleration. Maintainability - I'd give it mainly to the Hurricane, fabric is easy to fix but deteroriates. 

Does anyone have information of RAF Hurricane Squadrons converting to the P-40 or visa versa?!?


----------



## evangilder (Sep 25, 2005)

Well, call me a free-thinker, if you like, but I would go for the Hurricane on this one.


----------



## d_bader (Sep 25, 2005)

Heya flyboy,
616 RAF squadron (South Yorkshire) flew hurricanes and then kittyhawks. 

268 squadron flew spits and then kittyhawks, so if you rate the spit then the kittyhawk must have been ok.


----------



## Lunatic (Sep 25, 2005)

Depends upon how you compare them. Best model of each? I'd go with the P-40 since it was quite a bit faster (30-40 mph) and speed is life. By year? I'd go with the Hurricane since it reached its best model (the IIC) while the P-40 was still in its early incarnations. The Hurc turned better, the P-40 dived and rolled better. The P-40 was tougher. Hard call on this one.

I think the P-40's did better against the Luftwaffe' in Africa than the Hurcs did? Anyone got any info on this?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 25, 2005)

Thanks bader! There is a site about the P-40 that tells of it's success aganist the Luftwaffe. I'll post it here soon. I'm on my way to a wedding


----------



## Soren (Sep 25, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> Depends upon how you compare them. Best model of each? I'd go with the P-40 since it was quite a bit faster (30-40 mph) and speed is life. By year? I'd go with the Hurricane since it reached its best model (the IIC) while the P-40 was still in its early incarnations. The Hurc turned better, the P-40 dived and rolled better. The P-40 was tougher. Hard call on this one.
> 
> I think the P-40's did better against the Luftwaffe' in Africa than the Hurcs did? Anyone got any info on this?
> 
> ...



I believe the P-40 did a better job than the Hurricane in Africa, considerably so actually.

I know for a fact that the RAF's Spit's and Hurri's had a real tough time against the 109'
s during the African campaign, while the P-40 had less of a problem with them.

Anyways I'd go with the P-40, although its a tough decision.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

I lean toward the Hurricane for historical reasons but I do think the P-40 was more rugged than the Hurricane and probably overall a better aircraft than the Hurricane. My vote is still up in the air at this point.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

Did the Hurricane see much service as an actual fighter in North Africa?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 25, 2005)

remember the hurricane was fitted woth twin 40mm cannon and was ripping rommel's armour to shreads in africa.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

While his 88's were ripping the British Tanks to shreds


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 25, 2005)

yes but that's not part of the discussion, fact is, the P-40 wasn't ripping armour apart.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Alright I will give that you.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 25, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> Did the Hurricane see much service as an actual fighter in North Africa?



It primarily did ground attack but low and middle level in fighter sweeps and escorting were also common. P-38s often flew high cover for attack, sweeps and escorting using the P-40 where it was most effective.

I don't have the numbers handy but the P-40s with a top cover, on several occasions, decimated the arial convoys accross the Med. to Tunisia. Stuka formations were wiped out on a couple of other occasions. The P-40 was quite effective through early/mid '43 and held its own through '44.

I need more info on the Hurricane before I decide.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Which aircraft operated better in the hot sandy desert environment?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 25, 2005)

well the whoping gread big sand filters helped the hurricane and she was always easy to maintain but any maintenance is hard in the desert.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

That I know, and I can vouch for!


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 25, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Which aircraft operated better in the hot sandy desert environment?



I'll look around for some info. I have not heard of any particular problems with the P-40s, the British planes got those filters but the price was a large horse power loss.

wmaxt


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 25, 2005)

The sweeps that the P-40s flew against the Ju-52s were often joined by P-38s. For some reason, the US never developed any sort of sand filters.


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 25, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The sweeps that the P-40s flew against the Ju-52s were often joined by P-38s. For some reason, the US never developed any sort of sand filters.



Right on!

It was normal for P-38s to act as top cover in many of the missions of the P-40. Effective management of assets allowed the P-40 to live up to its potential. Top cover did get involved to.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 25, 2005)

Hmm intersting. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Hop (Sep 25, 2005)

The Hurricane.

Not because it was any better than the P-40, but because the P-40 should have outclassed the Hurricane, and didn't.

The Hurricane first flew in 1935, the P-40 in 1938.

The Hurricane entered squadron service at the start of 1937, the P-40 in mid 1940.

The Hurricane made it's first kill in October 1939, in the summer of 1940 it was the dominant fighter in the BoB, and had been the mainstay of the RAF for 2 years. By this time the P-40 was just getting into service.

The P-40 wasn't a bad plane. If it had come out at the same time as the Hurricane, it might have been a great plane. But it was much later than the Hurricane, without being better. Later even than the Spitfire, and it wasn't in the same league.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2005)

I wouldn't call the Hurricane the dominate fighter of the BoB. It was numerically the most important to the RAF. I think it is fair to say it won the battle. But both the 109 and the Spit were better fighters.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 26, 2005)

I agree and at the same I time I believe the Hurricane could not have done with out the Spitfire and the Spitfire surely could not have done it without the Hurricane in numbers.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 26, 2005)

Perhaps. But I think if the Spits were replace by an equal number of Hurricanes, the result of the Battle would have been the same. RAF losses might have been a bit higher. But I still don't think Germany could have won.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2005)

I agree, Germany would not have won the BoB but not because there aircraft were not capable. Rather because of stupid mistakes that they made anyhow like changing there targets.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

And the greatest RAF advantage (radar) would not have been affected.


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2005)

It was the decision to stop bombing the RAF's airfields and start bombing the major cities instead, that ultimatly led to the LW's loss of the BoB. 
Had the LW continued their strikes against the RAF's airfields, then fighter-command would have eventually given up the fight. 

In actual fact, fighter-command was only 'one' week away from giving up the fight, when the decision to start bombing London was given by Goering. The funny thing is, that this change in tactics was as a retaliation to a British miss-drop over Germany, and it would lead to the Germans actually losing the BoB.

The Irony of war.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

I will say this before any of the British fellows do. The RAF would not have 'given up the fight.' They may have lost or been beaten/annihilated, but they would not have 'given up.'

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 27, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> I will say this before any of the British fellows do. The RAF would not have 'given up the fight.' They may have lost or been beaten/annihilated, but they would not have 'given up.'


Very true LG. The would have fought to the end.


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2005)

To a degree your right LG, as it would take a hell of alot to make the British actually "Give up", but eventually they would infact have "Given up", as decisions for this were already being discussed during the darkest period of the BoB. 

Think about it, what would the RAF have done with no airfields ? The answer is simple, they would have given up, cause anything else would've been nonsense. (The British weren't led by a leader as fanatic as Hitler after-all)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

The RAF would have either 1) flown from roads or grass strips (you can't bomb EVERY field in England) or the pilots and crews would have become infantry and awaited the beaches. 

Churchill might not have been as fanatic as Hitler, but he was every bit as determined. Remember, Churchill coined the phrase "You can always take one with you." The Home Guard provides the perfect example of fighting to the end even if out-manned and out-gunned.

I also think, that had England actually been invaded the US would have stepped up it's activity in the war.


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2005)

Lightning Guy said:


> The RAF would have either 1) flown from roads or grass strips (you can't bomb EVERY field in England)



The logistical support would be hampered in a rather significant way as a/c would have to be scattered all over the place, and that would have serious consequences for the RAF, which already was short on pilots. 



Lightning Guy said:


> or the pilots and crews would have become infantry and awaited the beaches.



Which equals "No more RAF", which means the RAF has given up. 



> Churchill might not have been as fanatic as Hitler, but he was every bit as determined. Remember, Churchill coined the phrase "You can always take one with you." The Home Guard provides the perfect example of fighting to the end even if out-manned and out-gunned.



LG, there's a fine line which separates the 'Fanatic' from the 'Determined'. 

Without the RAF, Churchill would have given in, he wasn't a fool after-all.



Lightning Guy said:


> I also think, that had England actually been invaded the US would have stepped up it's activity in the war.



This I agree with.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

A couple of things to keep in mind about Churchill.

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed."

"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

"If you're going through hell, keep going."

And finally . . . 

"Never, never, never give up. "

It is my personal conviction that Churchill was the greatest national leader during WWII and that only death would cause him to stop his fight.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

Sorry, can't believe I forgot this one...
"We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2005)

Listing comments doesn't really prove anything, and despite how determined Churchill might have been, after seeing the casualties his people would have to endure, he would have eventually given in. (Any sane man would)

Without the RAF the British armed forces would've been bombed to smithereens, and Churchill would know this. Churchill might not have given up immediately without an airforce, but eventually he would have to.

Fighting the German army in WW2 without any airforce, would be suicidal at best.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

Listing comments does reveal something about the attitude of the man. And, in general, he did speak for the British people. Can you find me any comments of Churchill suing for peace? Or suggesting a conditional surrender?


----------



## evangilder (Sep 27, 2005)

I am with LG on this one. The resolve of the Brits would have been incredible. The "armada" of ships that were planned for Seelowe were woefully inadequate and it would have been a logistical nightmare for the Germans to pull it off. The may have been able to esatblish a beach-head at best, but I doubt they would have been able to occupy all of England, much less make it to London.


----------



## Glider (Sep 27, 2005)

The Germans could only have destroyed the strips that were in range of their fighters. Any further and your talking about unescorted bombers against fighters and there is only one loser in that scenario.
This would have meant that the area above the british troops defending the beaches would have been a no mans land for the airforces. Both airforces, each being able to gain local control of the air whilst neither would have had total control.
German plans and equipment for the launching of an invasion were very very poor. They may, and I only say may, have made it across but supporting the beachheads would have been impossible with the equipment they had. Remember we are talking about using barges to cross the channel. If they had made it across, we still had a large navy and I am sure there would have been an all out assult on the beaches and supply lines to France. I suspect almost any casualties would have been accepted as we couldn't let the Germans get a strong base on our side as our army was too weak in heavy equipment, having lost most of it in France. 
Its worth noting that the Germans would also have been short of armour as they didn't have the landing craft in any numbers to carry them.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

That is one thing to remember, only the stips in SE England were really being hit. The RAF still had fields in northern and western UK. Plus there was the RN to deal with.


----------



## Hop (Sep 27, 2005)

> It was the decision to stop bombing the RAF's airfields and start bombing the major cities instead, that ultimatly led to the LW's loss of the BoB.
> Had the LW continued their strikes against the RAF's airfields, then fighter-command would have eventually given up the fight.



If the Luftwaffe had kept up the same level of attacks throughout September that they'd managed in the last week of August, the RAF would have been in trouble. Not beaten, but certainly on the way to being beaten.

But the Luftwaffe could not do so. They lost too many planes, too many pilots, they had a shortage of spare parts, their pilots suffered from the strain and too many were unfit to fly.

Here's a graph of the fighter sorties flown by each side:






The first peak for the Luftwaffe marks Eagle day, and the subsequent week of fighting to destroy the RAF. That was considered a maximum effort by the Luftwaffe.

When that didn't work, they went back to the drawing board, and came back in the last week of August with another, even greater, effort. But you can see by the figures for the first week of September that they couldn't sustain that effort.

That's borne out by the serviceability figures as well:





Note the sharp decline in serviceability from mid August, only stemmed by the reduced fighter sorties from 7th September onwards (the Luftwaffe switched to attacking London on the 7th)

And by the fighter strength figures, note how the Luftwaffe, by September, was substantially weaker than the RAF, and how the required sorties were being flown by ever smaller numbers of fighters.





One side certainly was on the road to defeat, but it wasn't the RAF.



> In actual fact, fighter-command was only 'one' week away from giving up the fight, when the decision to start bombing London was given by Goering.



No.

Fighter Command actually had a conference on the morning of the 7th, before they knew about the change in Luftwaffe tactics.

From The Most Dangerous Enemy, by Stephen Bungay:


> Evill pointed out that at current rates the OTUs were turning out 280 Hurricane and Spitfire pilots a month, and that losses in the previous four weeks had been 348.





> The discussion turned to the fighting. Park doubted that the enemy could keep up its pressure for more than three weeks. Dowding said that it could go on much longer - it depended on politics, Goring's personal ascendancy and other factors. Given recent appraisals of German air strength, one should reckon on a long campaign. It was agreed, after some arguing about the figures, that the supply of aircraft would not be a problem, or a constraint on expan¬sion.





> Knowing that their enemy was preparing to 'go down hill' would have been cold comfort to the Luftwaffe. They assumed the enemy had been doing that for some time. In fact they believed he ought to be at his last gasp. General Stapf had reported to Haider on 30 August that the British had lost 800 Hurricanes and Spitfires since 8 August out of a front-line strength of 915. Given Schmid's estimate of their production capacity of 200-300 a month, the British could therefore only have 3-400 left at the outside. After another week of pounding in September, they must indeed be down to their last 200 machines.
> In fact, on the evening of 6 September, Fighter Command had over 750 serviceable fighters and 1,381 pilots available to it, about 950 of whom flew Spitfires or Hurricanes. It needed 1,588 pilots to be at full establishment, which is of course what Dowding wanted, so from his point of view he was 200 short.20 From the Luftwaffe's point of view, he had almost 200 more pilots and 150 more planes than he had had at the beginning of July when they set out to destroy him.



Far from being 1 week from defeat, on the morning of the Luftwaffe change in tactics FC decided on plans that would have kept them going for months longer at the current rate, whereas the Germans had already decided to change tactics to minimize their losses.

As Bungay goes on:


> There are many who believe that Fighter Command was on its knees after the attacks on the airfields. It was a strange way of kneeling. Given Evill's cal¬culations, and taking the worst scenario of no increase in output from the training units, if the Luftwaffe had continued its attacks on the airfields and continued to destroy aircraft in the air at the most favourable rate it ever achieved, there would still have been about 725 Hurricanes and Spitfires ready to take to the air in the third week of September.



And in contrast, Luftwaffe single engined pilot figures:

1 June 906
1 August 869
1 September 735
1 November 673

From outnumbering the RAF at the start of the BoB, the Luftwaffe had declined in strength, whilst the RAAF had actually gained strength. By the first week of September Fighter Command was larger than the Jagdwaffe, had more replacements coming through, and had already won the battle.



> To a degree your right LG, as it would take a hell of alot to make the British actually "Give up", but eventually they would infact have "Given up", as decisions for this were already being discussed during the darkest period of the BoB.



No, the decisions taken at the darkest period of the BoB were to start reducing strength over the rest of the country to reinforce the south east. Plans which were designed to keep the fight going for many more months at the current rate of losses.



> Think about it, what would the RAF have done with no airfields ? The answer is simple, they would have given up, cause anything else would've been nonsense.



The RAF had a large number of airfields in the SE, the Luftwaffe never even attacked many of them, because they were small and well camoflaged. 

The only vulnerable ones were the larger sector stations, but even these stood up to damage very well. From Dowding to Park, later in the battle:



> I agree with the Air Officer Commanding 11 Group that the damage done by air attack to aerodromes has been serious, and that it was begining at one time to affect materially the efficiency of our fighter operations. Nevertheless, I must point out:
> 
> (i) That 13 aerodromes in the Group underwent a total of over forty attacks in three weeks, but Manston and Lympne were the only two that were unfit for day flying for more than a few hours
> 
> (ii) That although the scale of the attack certainly exceeded te capacity of the works orginisation existing at the outset, this was rapidly strengthened, and I do not wish to express any dissatisfaction with the measures taken to effect this improvement



The attack on the airfields caused some damage and disruption, but came nowhere near shutting down the RAF in the SE.



> The RAF would have either 1) flown from roads or grass strips (you can't bomb EVERY field in England)
> 
> 
> The logistical support would be hampered in a rather significant way as a/c would have to be scattered all over the place, and that would have serious consequences for the RAF, which already was short on pilots.



The solution, if the major airfields in the SE had been wiped out (which was never a serious possibility), would be to operate the fighters off the minor airfields with grass runways, and to have flown them to major fields north of London for serviceing and repair.

Edit: graphs are from an article by Air Commodore Peter Dye on the BoB, by the RAF historical branch.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

Excellent graphs and info.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 27, 2005)

Good post Hop...


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 27, 2005)

Good info hop!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 27, 2005)

Yes indeed. Good post.


----------



## CurzonDax (Sep 27, 2005)

Exellent info. It supports a argument I always have with my colleges that it was all luck and leadership that let the RAF win. 

:{)


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2005)

Good post Hop. I haven't read this Bungay's work before, interesting.

Anyway I relied on my memory for this...



Hop said:


> No, the decisions taken at the darkest period of the BoB were to start reducing strength over the rest of the country to reinforce the south east. Plans which were designed to keep the fight going for many more months at the current rate of losses.



Yes those were the decisions 'taken', but surrendering certainly was 'discussed'. 

IIRC, on the 4th September fighter-command only had "50" Spits left, not much.

Anyway onwards..

_Göring had planned what he considered to be a knockout blow starting on 13 August. Adlerangriff (Eagle Attack). It was a failure. Most of the force was recalled but some Gruppen did not receive the signal and continued to meet strong opposition without fighter escorts. Again, there were no target priorities and the poor weather made an already confused situation worse. Later in the day, when the weather had improved, military targets were specified, particularly fighter airfields, but the Luftwaffe could not distinguish between fighter and bomber fields. By the end of the day the losses on both side were approximately equal. But, most important, the Luftwaffe had failed to subdue Fighter Command. On 15 August another massive attack was attempted, this time coordinated with Luftflotte 5, so that RAF forces were split. Again, confused orders and misunderstandings blunted the attack. The attacks in August became as regular as they were ferocious. RAF Fighter Command was now desperately short of pilots and the existing crews were exhausted. In the last week of August, 11 Group airfields were targeted and Fighter Command was now in serious trouble. At this rate there would be little to put into the air and even less to land on within two weeks. The RAF was now on the edge of defeat. Then, on 7 September, Hitler permitted the bombing of London and the Luftwaffe for the first time had a specified target. It was a miracle for the RAF and a massive blunder by the Luftwaffe who never knew how close they had come to victory._

The question is 'how' close to victory was the LW really, and I believe they were fairly close. (However Bungay has some fairly good arguments against this though)

As to how successful Op. Seelöwe would have been "if" the British airforce had given up, well I'd guess pretty successful.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 27, 2005)

I'm not sure about that. First of all, to this point only Fighter Command had been attacked. Bomber and Coastal Commands were still more or less intact and could have been a series obstacle. There was still the entire RN to deal with (which was vastly superior to the Kriegsmarine). Add the fact that the Wermacht had virtually no experience with this type of amphibious operation and I think Sealion was still in danger of failing.

Consider for example, the Allies had complete air supremacy over Normandy on D-Day but the issue was still in doubt.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Sep 27, 2005)

Sea lion was doomed had it been launched, even with fighter comman near decimated. As stated, bomber and coastal command were more or less intact, and would reak havoc on the barges, while crossing, and after they had landed, and then on the forces that made it ashore. They royal navy would not miss such a chance to make its power known. The luftwaffe would attack and probably sink or seriously damage some very important ships later in the war, but ultimatly would not be able to conquer england. British reslove was astounding, and would never have allowed a surrender unless the most gruesome fate certainly awaited.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 27, 2005)

The Germans did not have the sealift capacity, or the # of landing and assault craft required to make an amphibious assault... That operation was nothing more than a wet dream in Hitlers mountain retreat...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 27, 2005)

Soren said:


> IIRC, on the 4th September fighter-command only had "50" Spits left, not much.



From 'The Narrow Margin' by Derek Wood and Derek Dempster

pp. 104



> Contrary to popular belief, the R.A.F was never down to its last half-dozen Spitfires and Hurricanes in reserve during the Battle of Britain. The lowest point in the Battle was reached in the week ending September 13th, when there were 127 fighters ready for delivery in storage units. Of these 80 were Hurricanes and 47 were Spitfires.




Fighter command was down to it's last 50 Spitfires in storage, not in service. The Fighter Command order of battle for September 7th, 1940 shows 20 Spitfire squadrons on strength. The nominal strength of a RAF fighter unit was 18 pilots, 12 ready aircraft and 8 reserve aircraft. Even if we put all Spitfire squadrons at ony half strength that still leaves 200 Spitfires in squadron service, with 50 in reserve.[/u]


----------



## Hop (Sep 27, 2005)

> IIRC, on the 4th September fighter-command only had "50" Spits left, not much.



Spitfire numbers did drop to about 50 on the 4th September. But that's the number in the reserve, which went from about 70 in late August to 40 something on the 7th September.

The front line squadrons had well over 200 Spitfires, with the returns for 4th September showing 218 Spitfires serviceable, along with 407 Hurricanes, 50 Blenheims, 21 Defiants and 8 Gladiators.

At no point were the RAF reserves in storage exhausted, and front line strength remained at 100%, with losses being made good from the reserve.

Another of those graphs, from the same source:





That's one of the things that worried the RAF, reserves were decling, which meant, in time, front line strength would begin to decline as well.

What the RAF didn't realise was the Germans had very few reserves, had exhausted them long before, and had suffered a major drop in front line strength.

Bungay references Milch's report on his tour of Luftwaffe airfields in France in late August/early September. He reports that the gruppen were seriously under strength, with gruppes supposed to have 35 - 40 aircraft, the bomber gruppes averaged 20, the 109 gruppes only 18.

So whilst the RAF reserves were declining, they were never completely exhausted, and front line strength never declined, whereas the Luftwaffe had no reserves, had very low aircraft production, and were well below strength.

The RAF BoB website has the serviceable figures in their daily reports:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/calendar.html

They don't give them for the first few days, but:

17 July 
* Blenheim - 67
* Spitfire - 237
* Hurricane - 331
* Defiant - 20
* Total - 659 

24 July
* Blenheim - 56
* Spitfire - 238
* Hurricane - 294
* Defiant - 15
* Total - 603 

31 July
* Blenheim - 63
* Spitfire - 239
* Hurricane - 348
* Defiant - 25
* Total - 675

7 August
* Blenheim - 66
* Spitfire - 256
* Hurricane - 368
* Defiant - 24
* Total - 714 

14 August
* Blenheim - 59
* Spitfire - 219
* Hurricane - 342
* Defiant - 25
* Gladiator - 2
* Total - 647 

21 August
* Blenheim - 58
* Spitire - 239
* Hurricane - 400
* Defiant - 25
* Gladiator - 7
* Total - 729 

28 August
* Blenheim - 55
* Spitfire - 225
* Hurricane - 413
* Defiant - 23
* Gladiator - 7
* Total - 723 

4 September
* Blenheim - 50
* Spitfire - 218
* Hurricane - 407
* Defiant - 21
* Gladiator - 8
* Total - 704 

11 September
* Blenheim - 61
* Spitfire - 214
* Hurricane - 387
* Defiant - 21
* Gladiator - 8
* Total - 691 

The figures bounce around a lot, because they are serviceable aircraft, not aircraft on hand, and after a heavy period of fighting the serviceable numbers go down temporarily. But the RAF actually gained front line strength during the battle, the number of Spitfire and Hurricanes squadrons gradually increased, from 44 on the 14th July to 51 on the 1st September.

Richard Overy, The Battle, sums up in one sentence why the BoB is often represented as a very close run thing, with the RAF only narrowly staving off defeat in September. He goes into a description of how the British (and Americans) greatly overestimated the size of the Luftwaffe, and German production capability, and how the Germans underestimated the size of the RAF, and British production capability. Then:



> The British fought the battle as if it were a last ditch struggle against an overwhelming enemy; the German side fought against a force persistently misrepresented as technically and tactically inept, short of aircraft, pilots and bases.



From a British perspective, they were losing the BoB. Their losses were unsustainable, and in a matter of months they would be reduced to a state where they couldn't defend British airspace. 

The Germans felt they were winning. Their losses were high, but they thought the RAF's losses were much higher. Their strength was declining, but they thought the RAF's strength was declining faster. They knew they couldn't keep the same level of attack up for weeks, but they felt the RAF was only days from collapsing.

What the sides believed then still colours accounts, because it comes through in all the official records of the time. It's also a good story, and Churchill made some memorable speeches about it.

But from an impartial perspective, with full access to both sides losses and replacements, it's clear the RAF were winning from the start. They actually increased strength for the first months, where the Germans declined. They declined in strength slightly in late August and early September, but the Luftwaffe declined sharply at the same time, and expended all their effort in attacks that the RAF weathered fairly comfortably.

Here's another graph, showing the production balance for both sides:





For the RAF there's only a brief period when losses outstrip replacements. For the Luftwaffe losses outstrip replacements for almost the entire battle.



> As to how successful Op. Seelöwe would have been "if" the British airforce had given up, well I'd guess pretty successful.



I don't think Sea Lion would have been, because the Luftwaffe cannot stop the RN sinking the invasion fleet, but if the RAF had been defeated, then unhindered German bombing might well have been sufficient to force Britain out of the war.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Sep 27, 2005)

Another outstanding post. Very informative. 
It goes to show you how recorded history can become twisted at times. Perceptions overshadow facts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 27, 2005)

Great Stuff!!!!!


----------



## GregP (Sep 27, 2005)

Nothing sadder than weddings and funerals.

Remember, marriage is a three ring circus:

1) Engagement ring
2) Wedding ring
3) Suffering


----------



## Soren (Sep 27, 2005)

Hop said:


> Hop said:
> 
> 
> > > IIRC, on the 4th September fighter-command only had "50" Spits left, not much.
> ...


----------



## evangilder (Sep 28, 2005)

Well documented posts, Hop. Good show!


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 28, 2005)

Nice post hop, good info.

I'd agree Operation Sealion would not have been a success as the Germans did not have enough landing craft and would not have had complete control over the seas with the RN surely sinking a lot of the invasion fleet. Bombing alone may have had an impact on the moral but I think that it would have taken some time before bombing unhindered would of forced Britain out of the war. I also think that if the RAF did not engage for a period of time they could marginally improve their strength and re-equip and maybe have started another assault on the LW Bombers?


----------



## Lightning Guy (Sep 28, 2005)

So . . . I give a slight edge to the P-40 over the Hurricane. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## d_bader (Sep 28, 2005)

Being a Brit I'd better support the hurricane.

The huricane was designed earlier than the P-40 but compares about the smae so I would go for the hurricane because it was more advanced at the time compared to the P-40 when it was designed. The hurricane certainly played a major role in the BoB against advanced, modern planes. 

Hurricanes were replaced only the once in RAF squadrons by P-40s. This just shows that although a later design, the P-40 was not better.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2005)

Soren said:


> It was the decision to stop bombing the RAF's airfields and start bombing the major cities instead, that ultimatly led to the LW's loss of the BoB.
> Had the LW continued their strikes against the RAF's airfields, then fighter-command would have eventually given up the fight.
> 
> In actual fact, fighter-command was only 'one' week away from giving up the fight, when the decision to start bombing London was given by Goering. The funny thing is, that this change in tactics was as a retaliation to a British miss-drop over Germany, and it would lead to the Germans actually losing the BoB.
> ...



A little late commenting on this but here we go. Sorry I completely disagree with you. The British may have been close to being beaten but they would not give up. The British have never given up and they would not have int he BoB. They would have fought to the end and if worse were to happen they already had plan in place to move the government to Canada and evacuate as much of the military as possible. The British would not have given up.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 28, 2005)

and annother point about that post (late i know but i aint been on for a few days) it was actually a missdrop by the LW in which they actually bombed london that caused bomber command to very intentionally bomb Berlin the next night, however the germans didn't know that london had been bombed the night before and they saw this as unprovoked and so started an all out campain on british cities.......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2005)

That is what I have always read about it.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is what I have always read about it.


Same here. It was an accidental bombing of London which led the British to bomb Berlin which the Germans to lauch the blitz as they didn't know that they had bombed London first.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2005)

I wonder if Hitler had known if it actually would have changed anything. Probably not.


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I wonder if Hitler had known if it actually would have changed anything. Probably not.


Would not have thought so. He would have ordered it all the same in my opinion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 28, 2005)

yeah i mean what's he gonna say to his people? "it's ok that they bombed our capital city, we accidentily bombed theirs first"........


----------



## Soren (Sep 28, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > It was the decision to stop bombing the RAF's airfields and start bombing the major cities instead, that ultimatly led to the LW's loss of the BoB.
> ...



A little late ?  

Anyway, in light of Bungay's research, I'll have to agree with you. 

However "If" the RAF was defeated, then the British would infact have given up shortly after, or face annihilation. However according to Bungay's work, the RAF wasn't really ever that close to defeat as some Historians like to depict it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2005)

Given up! if the RAF had gone the Royal Navy would've loved nothing more than to show why they were the biggest and best navy in the world at the time by destroying the invasion force during the crossing! yes they would've taken heavy losses from aircraft, but that would've mattered if we stopped the invasion, ok, so, if we hadn't stopped the invasion, every single person within 50 miles of the coast that could hold and fire a gun would have gone to the coast and literally waited for the germans, even if they weren't trained soldiers, we rather like not being invaded, given we haven't been for nearly 1000 years, ok, so if the germans did get a bridgehead, knowing us we still wouldn't give up, we'd only try to beat them back again and again.........


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Given up! if the RAF had gone the Royal Navy would've loved nothing more than to show why they were the biggest and best navy in the world at the time by destroying the invasion force during the crossing! yes they would've taken heavy losses from aircraft, but that would've mattered if we stopped the invasion, ok, so, if we hadn't stopped the invasion, every single person within 50 miles of the coast that could hold and fire a gun would have gone to the coast and literally waited for the germans, even if they weren't trained soldiers, we rather like not being invaded, given we haven't been for nearly 1000 years, ok, so if the germans did get a bridgehead, knowing us we still wouldn't give up, we'd only try to beat them back again and again.........


Very true lanc, very true.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2005)

the only real chance they had of making us surrender wasn't to invade but to surround, to cut off all our supplies coming in and starve us out........


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> the only real chance they had of making us surrender wasn't to invade but to surround, to cut off all our supplies coming in and starve us out........


Which they tried with the U-boats and failed (only just) to succeed.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Sep 30, 2005)

so i think people are wrong when they say that without fighter command we'd give up, we might not win, but we would fight to the last man......


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 30, 2005)

Back on topic.....

"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"


----------



## cheddar cheese (Sep 30, 2005)

Wow, thats pretty amazing!


----------



## wmaxt (Sep 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so i think people are wrong when they say that without fighter command we'd give up, we might not win, but we would fight to the last man......



It would/will take much more than the loss of the RAF as a whole to make the British give up. They don't know how to quit anymore than we do! 8) 

wmaxt


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 30, 2005)

That is pretty interesting FBJ.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 30, 2005)

Did someone mention the Checkertailed clan?


----------



## Gnomey (Sep 30, 2005)

Nice pic Eric!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 30, 2005)

Nice Eric, thanks Gnomey!


----------



## Soren (Sep 30, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> so i think people are wrong when they say that without fighter command we'd give up, we might not win, but we would fight to the last man......



Lanc without an airforce, even the mighty RN would have been reduced to almost nothing in matter of weeks, if not days. There is no other weapon more effective against naval forces than aircraft. 

It might take a long time before the British would have given up, but without an airforce eventually they would have.

At any rate its not worth discussing it, as the RAF was infact never beaten and even at the time where it was close to, the LW was closer.


----------



## evangilder (Sep 30, 2005)

Thanks Joe and Gnomey! Great info there too, Joe!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 1, 2005)

Soren, are you british?? it doesn't sound it, when was the last time we gave up hope?? in 1940 what did the luftwaffe have that could take out a capital ship?? the LW were no more prepared to take out ships than the RAF, we were both still using small bombs to try and penetrate the top armour, which wasn't gonna happen, you're right in saying that aircraft are the most effective weapons against ships, but only really when they're carrying torpedos, the RN would have loved the chance to bring their huge forces together for the sole purpose of destroying the ill prepared invasin force, the germans had no experience of amphibious landings and were coming over often in just civilian barges! they wouldn't have a chance, the germans caused problems releasing S-boats into the allied invasion force and they just had a couple of torp. tubes, imagine what battleships and cruisers would do, meanwhile the massed flak from all the ships the the german fear or hitting their own ships in the channel would make it very difficult for them to bomb, i realise there would be losses but they can be replaced as long as the island remains intact, if you think we'd have given up you know nothing about the British........


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 1, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Soren, are you british?? it doesn't sound it, when was the last time we gave up hope?? in 1940 what did the luftwaffe have that could take out a capital ship?? the LW were no more prepared to take out ships than the RAF, we were both still using small bombs to try and penetrate the top armour, which wasn't gonna happen, you're right in saying that aircraft are the most effective weapons against ships, but only really when they're carrying torpedos, the RN would have loved the chance to bring their huge forces together for the sole purpose of destroying the ill prepared invasin force, the germans had no experience of amphibious landings and were coming over often in just civilian barges! they wouldn't have a chance, the germans caused problems releasing S-boats into the allied invasion force and they just had a couple of torp. tubes, imagine what battleships and cruisers would do, meanwhile the massed flak from all the ships the the german fear or hitting their own ships in the channel would make it very difficult for them to bomb, i realise there would be losses but they can be replaced as long as the island remains intact, if you think we'd have given up you know nothing about the British........


Couldn't agree more Lanc, well said.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 1, 2005)

Well said Lanc. Something most people don't know is that even during the blitz, London had a bustling night life. The Brits are a tough bunch with amazing fortitude. I know, I lived amongst them for three years.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 1, 2005)

Good points lancky.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 1, 2005)

More information on the 325th. A little off from my earlier posting but still very impressive


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 1, 2005)

Nice info FBJ.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Great Info FBJ and I pretty much agree with your whole argument Lanc! That is pretty wiered aint it?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Oct 2, 2005)

Good little P-40 chart.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 2, 2005)

well it's a delightful new sensation for me adler, i can't even beging to put across how exited i am right now!


----------



## Lunatic (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I give up. Whats the point in trying to get a thread back on topic when no one listens anyhow?



Sorry Adler, I'd not seen your posts yet.

Might I suggest moving the divergent posts to a new thread?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

Lunatic said:


> I respectfully disagree. The Japanese people were willing to sustain tremendous losses in defense of the Emperor. The Japanese military commanders still believed that if they could inflict sufficiently high losses on the Allies the Allies would accept a negotiated surender and they were willing to endure many times that level of losses to achieve this.
> 
> Had the USA forgone the use of non-conventilonal weapons (the A-Bomb and nerve gas) Allied losses would have run to the mid 6 figure mark, perhaps even as high as a million. And Japanese losses would have been 10 fold as high. And the Soviets would have ended up in complete control of China and at least two and probably three of the Northern Japanese Islands (they hold one today), if not the entire contry. And the Soviet's would have had no respect for Japanese culteral identity or tradition.



Sure losses would've been high, but the USA wouldn't have signed any form of Peace treaty with the Japanees, no they would've only accepted a Japanees surrender.

And eventaully, against the might of the USA, the Japs would've surrendered.



> Having the A-Bomb dropped on Japan was the best thing that could have happened to them short of a miracle of enlightenment in the Japanese milititary leadership. It saved millions of Japanese lives and allowed them to retain the largest part of their cultural identity. Had they endured a an invasion, even without the Soviets being involved, their culture would have been almost completely lost.



I agree 100%.



> How? They'd have hung back until the critical moment when Hitler made his move and wiped out his invasion force.



Hung back ? Lunatic, the RN would be sunk before even having the chance to escape.



> Hitler didn't have the resources to build a Luftwaffe' large enought to stop that (especially at night).



Without any RAF, oh yes he had.



> Sea-Lion was a fantasy cooked up in a cocain/amphetamine/morphine daze. The German's had no capacity for such an operation and had they tried it the war would have ended much earlier.
> 
> Read this essay: http://www.flin.demon.co.uk/althist/seal1.htm
> 
> ...



Remember Lunatic, we're talking no'more RAF here. 

And as your link suggests, the RAF would have had a huge part in defeating any invasion force.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

Soren, Alder split the thread the discussion is continuing there not here.

Link: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2842&highlight=


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

No prob. I already did, I split it into *Sorens Really What If Thread*. Though it was a great discussion it really did not belong here in this thread and though I believe that the Germans had military supiriority over the Allies at that point in the war there was no way that Sea Lion would have worked therefore I named it *Sorens REally What If Thread.*


----------



## Soren (Oct 2, 2005)

I see.

Thank you Gnomey.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Now alright lets continue the discussion on the P-40 and the Hurricane shall we!

I dont know how to get it started again but I am sure some one will.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

I like the Hurricane better. Although the P-40 was the more advanced fighter the Hurricane was just as effective as the P-40 in the roles it did, although less competent at taking on the LW fighters it was more than capable of dealing with the bombers (which it did with distinction in the Battle of Britain leaving the fighters to the Spits) and it could take large amounts of battle damage which could be easily repaired because of it's metal and fabric construction.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

I will agree with you also. I still have not formed that much of an opinion but it leans toward the Hurricane atleast for historical reasons even though FBJ had a really good argument there for the P-40 with his charts and all. The P-40 did better than I thought it was capable of.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 2, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I will agree with you also. I still have not formed that much of an opinion but it leans toward the Hurricane atleast for historical reasons even though FBJ had a really good argument there for the P-40 with his charts and all. The P-40 did better than I thought it was capable of.


Me too, but I have a soft spot for the Hurricane (and a slightly softer spot for the Spit )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Me too of the two I like the Hurricane better than the P-40.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2005)

Both of them were very tough and capable aircraft and were both under-rated. I'll take a pot shot at the Hurricane, not out of disrespect, just for argument's sake....

Pisis posted a great site the other day and started reading about MSgt Anabuki Satoru, a 51 kill Japanese ace who flew over Rangoon. He fought against both the Hurricane and the P-40 while in the same theater 


APPENDIX I: Killboard of Anabuki Satoru.
Courtesy of Ooishi Naoaki

Kill #	Date (*)	Type of plane flown	Type	Comments (Place, etc)
1	22/12/1941	Ki-27	P-40	Lingayen/Philippines
2	-	Ki-27	unk.	unk.
3	09/02/1942	Ki-27	P-40	Bataan/Philippines
4	25/10/1942	Ki-43	P-40	Chinskia/India
5	10/12/1942	Ki-43	Hurricane	Chittagong/India
-	15/12/1942	Ki-43	Hurricane 2C	Chittagong/India, probable.
6	20/12/1942	Ki-43	Hurricane	Magwe/Burma
7	20/12/1942	Ki-43	Blenheim	Magwe/Burma, injured
8	23/12/1942	Ki-43	unk.	Fenni/Burma?
9	23/12/1942	Ki-43	Blenheim	Magwe/Burma, Night kill
10-12	24/12/1942	Ki-43	3 Hurricane 2Cs	Magwe/Burma, one of them was P/O C.D. Fergusson (POW)
11	30/12/1942	Ki-43	Blenheim	Meiktila/Burma
12	14/01/1943 Ki-43	Hurricane	Inden/India?
13	16/01/1943	Ki-43	P-40	Yunnan Station/China
14	17/01/1943	Ki-43	Hurricane	Fenni/Burma?
15-16	19/01/1943	Ki-43	2 Hurricanes	Akyab/Burma
17	24/01/1943	Ki-43	Wellington	Rangoon/Burma
18	26/01/1943	Ki-43	B-24	Mingaladong/Burma, first B-24 daylight kill
19	30/01/1943	Ki-43	B-25	Toungoo/Burma
20	28/02/1943	Ki-43	Blenheim	Akyab/Burma
21	28/02/1943	Ki-43	Hurricane	Akyab/Burma
-	02/03/1943	Ki-43	Hurricane	Fenni/Burma?, 
22	24/03/1943	Ki-43	B-25	Meiktila/Burma, probable
-	29/03/1943	Ki-43	Hurricane 2B	Mondo/Burma, probable
23-24	30/03/1943	Ki-43	2 Hurricane 2Bs	Mondo/Burma
25-27	31/03/1943	Ki-43	3 Hurricanes	Pataga/India
28-29	04/04/1943	Ki-43	2 Hurricanes	Dohazali/India
-	20/04/1943	Ki-43	Hurricane	Imphal/India, probable
30	20/04/1943	Ki-43	P-36	Imphal/India
31-32	21/04/1943	Ki-43	2 P-36s	Imphal/India, Maneouvre flap used
33	28/04/1943	Ki-43	P-40	Kunming/China
34	04/05/1943	Ki-43	Hurricane 2C	Cox's Bazar/India
35-38	15/05/1943	Ki-43	4 P-40s	Kunming/China
39-40	22/05/1943	Ki-43	2 Hurricane 2Cs	Chittagong/India
41-42	29/05/1943	Ki-43 "Fubuki"	1 Hurricane,
1 Spitfire?	Chittagong/India, "Fubuki" retired of service with 230 hours of flying
43-46	8/10/1943	Ki-43 "Kimikaze"	1 P-38, 3 B-24s	Rangoon/Burma, heavily injured
47-50	unk.	Ki-84	4 Hellcats	Philippines. In separated sorties
51	unk.	Ki-84	B-29	Honshu

I count 25 Hurricanes kills and 9 P-40 kills. Tactics? Pilot Skill? Better aircraft? 

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/anabuki/anabuki.htm


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 2, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Both of them were very tough and capable aircraft and were both under-rated. I'll take a pot shot at the Hurricane, not out of disrespect, just for argument's sake....
> 
> Prisis posted a great site the other day and started reading about MSgt Anabuki Satoru, a 51 kill Japanese ace who flew over Rangoon. He fought against both the Hurricane and the P-40 while in the same theater
> 
> ...



In the PTO (by PTO I include all theaters against Japan a common mis conception is that it was all counted as 1 place, the AAF actualy divided it into 4 areas, Pacific, CBI, Far East and the Alutians) aitcraft were encountered in waves and groups so the encounters with the Hurri/P-40 may not have been equal. 

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 2, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > Both of them were very tough and capable aircraft and were both under-rated. I'll take a pot shot at the Hurricane, not out of disrespect, just for argument's sake....
> ...



Very True! This guy was also one of Japan's top dogs as well! I wonder if we have data about quantities of Hurricanes and P-40 over Rangoon, I think we know about those guys with the faces painted on their aircraft


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 2, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Very True! This guy was also one of Japan's top dogs as well! I wonder if we have data about quantities of Hurricanes and P-40 over Rangoon, I think we know about those guys with the faces painted on their aircraft



Thats true to, luck and oportunity played a part to. 

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2005)

Humm good info there guys. Id agree here and say that it was probably skill and opurtunity that did those guys in, but then again is that not most air to air kills anyhow?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 2, 2005)

I see some people have been doing their homework! Great info! 

I like the P-40 Warhawk better than the Hurricane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 3, 2005)

Whats your reasons for it. I have not made up a true opinion yet but I am leaning toward the Hurricane.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 3, 2005)

I love the P40, mostly because it was an American fighter that served with distinction through most of the war (albiet in the fighter bomber role). I like the Hurricane because of the upgrade programs it went through. Personally, my favorite models of both aircraft are the P40N and the Hurricane IIC and IID. Imagine if an enemy fighter or bomber had been hit by one of those 40mm rounds. Can you say "OUCH."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

Yeah that would suck!


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 4, 2005)

I prefer the P-40, because it was the backbone of the RAAF in WWII and played a crucial role in the battle for Milne Bay which saw the first defeat of the Japanese on land.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 4, 2005)

Thou dust have a point!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

I think I still like the Hurricane better mostly because of its BoB record.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

A comparison.......

Curtiss P-40 E Kittyhawk 
Armament: six.50 cal machine guns

Specifications:
Length: 31' 9" (9.68 m)
Height: 12' 4" (3.76 m)
Wingspan: 37' 4" (11.38 m)
Gross Weight: 9100 lbs

Propulsion:
No. of Engines: 1
Powerplant: Allison V-1710
Horsepower: 1150 each

Performance:
Range: 850 miles (1368 km)
Cruise Speed: 235 mph (378 km/h)
Max Speed: 362 mph (582 km/h)
Ceiling: 30000 ft (9143.6 m)

__________________________________________________________

Hurricane 
Specifications
Dimensions:
Wingspan: 40 ft, 0 in.
Height: 13 ft, 1 in.

Weights:
Mk I: 4,982 lbs empty, 7,490 lbs maximum.
Mk IIC: 5,657 lbs empty, 8,250 lbs maximum.

Armament: 
Mk I: Eight .303 Browning machine guns with 333 rounds per gun.
Mk IIC: Four 20mm Hispano cannon and up to 1,000 lbs of bombs.

Performance

Max speed:
Mk I: 322 mph at 22,000 ft.
Mk IIC: 342 mph at 22,000 ft. (Sea Hurricane Mk IIC: 336 Mph at 18,000 ft.).

Service ceiling:
Typical all Marks: 36,500 ft.

Range on internal fuel:
Mk I : 505 miles.
Mk IIC: 480 miles.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2005)

In performance they are about even, both having advantages over the other in some areas. I do like the Hurricanes armament though!


----------



## MacArther (Oct 4, 2005)

Still, the P40 was the better fighter in terms of actual fighter-to-fighter combat (although not by much; and still not the best fighter).


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> In performance they are about even, both having advantages over the other in some areas. I do like the Hurricanes armament though!



True, its a hard choice. I think I'll go P-40 twice the range, can carry 1,000 and a 75gal belly tank plus its a little tougher.

I'd rather have the 6 .50s over 8 .30s but 4 20mm I'd have to think twice.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

Armament Information, and a comment about .303's, .50 cal and 20mm's.


"Wiltz "Flash" Segura recalled his six victories in the P-40 relating how "you could hold the trigger for a split second at a time only since we didn't have that much ammo." The P-40 carried only 281 r.p.g."


Jerry Collinsworth flew Spitfire Vs and IXs in Tunisia 1943 with the U.S.A.F. shooting down six Fw 190s. Here are some of his comments about gunnery. 

"The 303's were practically worthless against the armor plating of the 190's and the 109's. And the 20's only carried 60 rounds per gun on the V. I believe the 303's had about 300 rds. per gun." 


*Hurricane*
"The IIC's carried a total of 364 rounds (91 per cannon) which - at an approximate rate of fire of 600-650 rounds per minute - was only long enough for about nine seconds of firing. So every second had to count and a typical burst would only be between one and three seconds. 

Like all fighter armament, the IIC's cannon were aligned to focus at a point some way ahead of the aircraft. The original Hurricane had its machine guns aligned to converge at a point about 650 yards ahead, but later the distance was reduced to 400 yards. Finally, at the insistence of Squadron Leader P J H Halahan (the Commanding Officer of No 1 Squadron until May 1940), the alignment was further reduced to 250 yards. 

Therefore successful night intruder pilots would position themselves behind the enemy, so as to escape observation, and a little above or below, so as to hit the fuselage, and the usual mode of attack would be to tuck in close and fire from a distance of 100-200 yards. 

Use of cannon could be colourful. Godfrey ball of 43 Squadron recalls: 

"When shooting up trains, the cannon shells would ricochet from both the engine strikes and from the permanent way (if you undershot when aiming at the guard's van) and looked remarkably like flak- blue, red, green and white. It almost seemed at times as if I were going to fly into my own bullets!".


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 4, 2005)

Which P-40 model was that, didn't later models have more? The numbers you quoted would give about the same firing time.

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> Which P-40 model was that, didn't later models have more? The numbers you quoted would give about the same firing time.
> 
> wmaxt



He flew with the 23rd Fighter Group’s 75th Fighter Squadron, they had N model P-40s.

Yep - the firing times - that's what I was showing - very perceptive! 8)


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 4, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> wmaxt said:
> 
> 
> > Which P-40 model was that, didn't later models have more? The numbers you quoted would give about the same firing time.
> ...



N models were light weight P-40s, was the ammo load lightned?

Thanks.

Thanks for the comparison too. Sometimes we get so involved in the discussion we forget the actual performance envolopes were discussing.  I'm poking fun at all of us - I do it sometimes too.  

wmaxt


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

wmaxt said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > wmaxt said:
> ...



I know!  better watch it - we might start talking about Civil War Tug Boats!

You're probably right about the N model too, maybe the ammo load was reduced?!?


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 4, 2005)

[quote="FLYBOYJ
I know!  better watch it - we might start talking about Civil War Tug Boats![/quote]

 

wmaxt


----------



## Soren (Oct 4, 2005)

The P-40 was the better of the two, as it proved during the African campaign. (Quite considerably so)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

Soren said:


> The P-40 was the better of the two, as it proved during the African campaign. (Quite considerably so)



With that said it might be interesting to get some numbers of kills, P-40, Hurricane and ME-109. Marselle's tally should be looked at as well as I know he shot down both


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Oct 4, 2005)

If i could have flown the P-40, or the hurricane, id go with the P-40. Good dive, decent armament, rugged as hell. Allthough the hurricane can say the same for all of these things, its kind of a matter of your opinion.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2005)

carpenoctem1689 said:


> If i could have flown the P-40, or the hurricane, id go with the P-40. Good dive, decent armament, rugged as hell. Allthough the hurricane can say the same for all of these things, its kind of a matter of your opinion.



Another thing to look at is creature comforts - I've flown in fabric aircraft (and partially fabric aircraft) and they always seemed cold to me. I would think the P-40 might be a bit more comfortable in the colder climate although both of them operated in the cold (Alaska, USSR, Finland)


----------



## MacArther (Oct 4, 2005)

on the P40 N subject, I could be wrong about this, but I think they had increase ammo capacity at the expense of a pair of guns.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 5, 2005)

Awww hell just give me a x-wing.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

MacArther said:


> on the P40 N subject, I could be wrong about this, but I think they had increase ammo capacity at the expense of a pair of guns.



I think you meant decrease. Putting 6 guns in the wings in lieu of 4 - I believe your're correct...


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 5, 2005)

I'm having trouble figuring it out, most references don't give Amo counts.

wmaxt


----------



## MacArther (Oct 5, 2005)

You missunder stood me, I mean the earlier models had 6 guns in the wings, and to lighten the plane 2 guns were obmitted. However, this left more room for fuel and ammo.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 5, 2005)

taking guns out of a fighter wont allow more room for fuel........


----------



## plan_D (Oct 5, 2005)

It would if there's wing tanks and you put in bigger tanks.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 5, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> taking guns out of a fighter wont allow more room for fuel........



Wanna Bet?



plan_D said:


> It would if there's wing tanks and you put in bigger tanks.



Exactly!


----------



## MacArther (Oct 5, 2005)

Wouldn't the room also be used for extra ammo for the four guns? If you remove 2 guns, then there is much more room for ammo *and* fuel, and thus more flight and firing time.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 6, 2005)

...you could have a lot more of one or a little bit more of both I suppose.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 6, 2005)

and how many fighters in the P-40's class had wing tanks exactly??


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2005)

P-39, P-63, KI-43, Zero, off the top of my head......


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 6, 2005)

yeah but them planes didn't even have all their armourment in the wings of course they can have wing tanks


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yeah but them planes didn't even have all their armourment in the wings of course they can have wing tanks



WRONG! P-36, P-39 and Zero had wing guns!!!


----------



## Royzee617 (Oct 6, 2005)

Tough one. I like both planes and no doubt it will all be subjective. Both had mixed careers as fighters (pursuit) and ground attack.

The Hurri was already obsolescent by WW2. Under the skin it used much of the design of 30s biplanes. But that made it easier to build and repair when that was important. In contrast the P40 was the first of the next generation with a lot more metal. As a fighter it outgunned the Hurri (until the 20 mm cannon but they were for ground attack not AtA). But I think the Hurri was more manoeuvrable at most altitudes.

They were contemporary and the RAF used both... I don't think the Hurri ever made it to USAAF service etc. (Unlike the Spitfire) - and kept using them until they were replaced by the Typhoon and P51, respectively (I think). So they were not in service for all that long c.f. the Spitfire or 109 which the Hurri fought with in BoB.

On reflection I would have to say that the Hurri edges out the P40 due to its versatility. It was used in some very challenging roles but few planes could have withstood being rocket-fired off a pitching merchantman's deck in the Arctic to pursue Condors. Plus I think the Hurri was one of the first allied planes to use rocket projectiles and the P40 did not.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 6, 2005)

Royzee617 said:


> Tough one. I like both planes and no doubt it will all be subjective. Both had mixed careers as fighters (pursuit) and ground attack.
> 
> The Hurri was already obsolescent by WW2. Under the skin it used much of the design of 30s biplanes. But that made it easier to build and repair when that was important. In contrast the P40 was the first of the next generation with a lot more metal. As a fighter it outgunned the Hurri (until the 20 mm cannon but they were for ground attack not AtA). But I think the Hurri was more manoeuvrable at most altitudes.
> 
> ...


Good points Roy. I agree with all of them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 6, 2005)

Agree, good points for the Hurricane - my sources showing both aircraft with the ability to carry a 500 pound bomb load as well.

Found out as well the Tomahawk IIB carried 380 rpg for it's four wing mounted .50s. The P-40E carried 281 rpg for it's 6 .50s.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 7, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > yeah but them planes didn't even have all their armourment in the wings of course they can have wing tanks
> ...



if you re-read what i said i said they didn't have ALL their armorment in their wings, so i wasn't wrong........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > the lancaster kicks ass said:
> ...



But they had armament in the wing With wing fuel tanks - isn't that what we were discussing?!?!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 7, 2005)

yes but you ceemed under the impression i wasn't aware those fighters had wing guns, which i was.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yes but you ceemed under the impression i wasn't aware those fighters had wing guns, which i was.........



OK - my mistake...


----------



## MacArther (Oct 7, 2005)

The point was that the P40 N could carry more *ammo* _and_ more fuel. Thus it was the better fighter because it could carry more rounds of a harder hitting gun.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 7, 2005)

all them rounds are useless though if the plane is a poor gunnery platform, i know the P-40 was a good platform i'm just saying ammo isn't everything, you take out a plane with a couple of bullets if you put them in the right place, there's more to a good fighter than ammo.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> all them rounds are useless though if the plane is a poor gunnery platform, i know the P-40 was a good platform i'm just saying ammo isn't everything, you take out a plane with a couple of bullets if you put them in the right place, there's more to a good fighter than ammo.........



I read somewhere that Jimmie Thach was confronted about F4F pilots dismayed about some modles only having 4 guns as opposed to 6. His response was "What good is having 6 guns when you can't hit anything with 4?"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 7, 2005)

exactily........


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 7, 2005)

I read somewhere that Jimmie Thach was confronted about F4F pilots dismayed about some modles only having 4 guns as opposed to 6. His response was "What good is having 6 guns when you can't hit anything with 4?" [/quote]

LOL, never heard that one. Still, even though I am firmly in the P-40 camp, wasn't one of the drawbacks of the P-40 is that it could only use Prestone coolant. It seems to me in reading several Flying Tigers accounts and books, that the AVG guys would go nuts trying to find Prestone. (I am at work and don't have the time or resources to verify all of this)

As far as carrying bombs, and I my have missed this somewhere back there, it was until the introduction of the KIttyhawk variant of the P-40 that it could carry bombs, the P-40 Warhawks, unless they were really modified could not.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> I read somewhere that Jimmie Thach was confronted about F4F pilots dismayed about some modles only having 4 guns as opposed to 6. His response was "What good is having 6 guns when you can't hit anything with 4?"



LOL, never heard that one. Still, even though I am firmly in the P-40 camp, wasn't one of the drawbacks of the P-40 is that it could only use Prestone coolant. It seems to me in reading several Flying Tigers accounts and books, that the AVG guys would go nuts trying to find Prestone. (I am at work and don't have the time or resources to verify all of this)

As far as carrying bombs, and I my have missed this somewhere back there, it was until the introduction of the KIttyhawk variant of the P-40 that it could carry bombs, the P-40 Warhawks, unless they were really modified could not.

:{)[/quote]

Actually it was the "C" model (Tomahawk MK IIB) that started carrying bombs....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

*GOT THIS FROM A "DEAD" SITE LINK, GREAT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE P-40B VS. THE ME-109 - SOMEONE DID THEIR HOMEWORK!*


Top Speed
The values have been measured offline with air start at the respective altitude, 100% fuel, after 4 min acceleration at 100% power and another 2 min acceleration at War Emergency Power.

The Me 109E-4 is slightly faster below 7500 ft, somewhat slower than the P-40B from 7500 - 16000 ft, and faster above that, with its superiority increasing with altitude.
Climb Rate
A graphical comparison of the climb rates. The values have been measure offline, take-off with 100% fuel, climb at 100% power (no War Emergency Power) using the climb autopilot. The climb rates were averaged over the time clocked for 5000 ft intervals (with the 1st interval above ground level from 1000 - 5000 ft.)

Climb speed for the P-40B 130 mph
Climb speed for the Me 109E-4 130 mph
The climb rate of the Me 109E-4 is very much superior to that of the P-40B. It starts with a +50% advantage at sea level and increases to a +100% advantage at 17500 ft.
The climb rate is subject to some variation according to power setting and total weight (mainly determined by the fuel load):
Average Climb Rate 1000 - 10000 ft
Type	Climb rate [fpm]
Normal Power	WEP (100% fuel)	WEP (10% fuel)
P-40B	2300	2700	3200
Me 109E-4	3500	3900	4500
Obviously, even a lightly loaded P-40B on WEP will not outclimb a fully loaded Me 109E-4 on 100% normal power.

Manoeuvrability
Roll Rate
The P-40B is superior to the Me 109E-4 in rolling at all speeds, though at high speeds the superiority is greatest. While the Messerschmitt's ailerons seem almost frozen at 400 mph, the P-40B rolls very quickly at that speed, and to both sides with equal ease.

Time for a 360° Roll

*SEE BELOW*

The roll rates were measured with 100% fuel at about 1000 - 5000 ft altitude at the respective indicated air speeds.
Turning
The P-40B turns better than the Me 109E-4 at all speeds. While the difference is not very large, it's quite noticable.
Here the specific excess power values for a 3-G turn at 200 mph that is flown from 5000 ft - 1000 ft as a shallow spiral dive (using WEP).
Typ	3-G Turn at 200 mph
Time	Specific Excess Power
P-40B	158 s	-25.3 ft/s
Me 109E-4	150 s	-26.7 ft/s


Firepower
The Firepower of the P-40B is not very impressive, but adequate. The Me 109E-4 on the other hand enjoys good firepower, but the ammunition supply is much more limited.
*
SEE BELOW*

Tactics
At altitudes above 18000 ft, the Me 109E-4 clearly outperforms the P-40B. Between 18000 ft and 8000 ft the P-40B enjoys a greater top speed, while the Me 109E-4 holds a vast advantage in climb. Below 8000 ft, the Me 109E-4 is slightly faster than the P-40B. When it comes to turning, the P-40B however is superior at all but the highest altitudes.
Tactics for the P-40B
The P-40B should avoid combat against he Me 109E-4 at altitudes above 18000 ft. Should it be attacked by a Messerschmitt at high altitude, flat turns are a good defense as they force the Me 109 to bleed speed. If that fails, a dive to a lower altitude will probably shake the Messerschmitt - a dive to 15000 ft will bring the P-40B into its region of superior top speed. If it's necessary to dive even lower, the best way would be to dive to the deck as the speeds are almost equal there. A sharp roll to the left at high speed and a pullout at 90° to the initial flight path will give the P-40B a good headstart as it's impossible for the Me 109E to roll anywhere as quickly in a dive.
Offensively, it's important to exploit the superior speed at medium altitude to catch the Me 109E-4. An altitude advantage at the beginning of the fight defeats the Messerschmitt's greatest advantage: Its superior climbing ability. Its manoeuvrablity enables the P-40B to keep its energy advantage throughout the attack, which may be better than sacrificing the energy to saddle up on the Me 109's tail in case there are more enemies in the area. It also helps to defeat any attempt to dive away.
When firing the guns, it's a good idea to stay aware of the differences between the two sets of guns: The two 12.7 mm machine guns in the nose are very accurate no matter what the range is, and they have the same or better firepower as the four 7.62 mm wing guns. The 12.7 mm guns accordingly should be used at all ranges, in contrast to the wing guns that should be set to a short convergence distance (like 150 yards) and fired - in addition to the centreline guns! - at short range only. 
Tactics for the Me 109E-4
The best tactics for the Me 109E-4 obviously would be to fight the P-40B over 18000 ft. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the enemy is cooperative enough to comply with this suggestion! For the best chances of success, the Me 109E-4 needs to make sure that it enters any fight with an altitude advantage, and it's imperative to avoid being surprised by a P-40B.
If the approach of a P-40 (or any unidentified enemy) is spotted at long range, climbing probably is the best option as long as there's a chance of getting above the attacker. Even if the P-40B gives chase, it's possible to outrun it at altitudes where the P-40 is supposed to be faster in level flight if the Messerschmitt pilots climbs away. A very shallow angle might be best to deny the P-40B the option to come in level and close by zooming up. As long as the P-40B is forced to climb at all, it loses part of its engine power to lift the heavy weight of its airframe, and as a result it loses its speed advantage, too.
A P-40 at about the same altitude and speed can be shaken by a dive that leads into a smooth level run at 5000 ft where the Me 109E-4's speed advantage is at its maximum. Below 1000 ft, a shallow climb might be in order to get a noticable speed advantage, as long as it doesn't mean the P-40B can zoom up into an attack right then. Turning is not a good defensive move for the Me 109E-4, but it might be unavoidable if the P-40B is about to get into a shooting position.
To successfully attack a P-40B, the Me 109E-4 needs to hold an energy advantage. Following the P-40B into a turn is not a good idea - the P-40B turns better, and the Messerschmitt needs to keep its energy advantage to get away after an unsuccessful gunnery pass. If the P-40B dives away, it should only be followed if it doesn't have too much of a headstart - else, a lengthy tail chase would result, and if the P-40B turns back into the attacker, maybe even a turning fight at deck level which the Me 109E-4 probably would lose.
In general, the best tactics involve climbing back up over the P-40B after each attack so that it's possible to fly repeated attacks against the P-40. The firepower of the Me 109E-4 will ensure the P-40 pilot's demise if he makes just a single mistake.


----------



## Royzee617 (Oct 7, 2005)

cannon firing Hurri pic


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 7, 2005)

Very Cool! I was trying to get the cutaway for both aircraft on here as a comparison...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 7, 2005)

What book is that.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 7, 2005)

Nice information guys.


----------



## Royzee617 (Oct 9, 2005)

I looked for a cutaway of the P40 but no luck yet.

These images were from EBay - some geezer flogging issues of the 'collect the set' mag 'Airplane' from some years ago. Nice mag got some myself somewhere.

See this forum too:
http://tailslide.firelightsoftware.com/fsic/Backup/Forum1/004367.html

argh, sheer delight:
http://www.warbirdphotos.net/aviapix/Fighters/P40/

und hier:
http://www.p40warhawk.com/Technical/Technical.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

Damn seems like a nice set to have then.


----------



## Royzee617 (Oct 9, 2005)

Cost a small fortune then - yours for a buck or two now.... the killer is the postage!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 9, 2005)

Will see if I can find them on Ebay.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 10, 2005)

Postage is always a bummer. You see MP3 players on Buy it Now! for £1 and then see that postage is £35.00.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 10, 2005)

Shouldn't that be the other way around?!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 10, 2005)

Yeah, but its a clever marketing technique. You think ooh, only a quid and buy it, only then to find out theyre making up the rest of the money on postage. Annoys me to no end.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yeah, but its a clever marketing technique. You think ooh, only a quid and buy it, only then to find out theyre making up the rest of the money on postage. Annoys me to no end.


Then dont buy it....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 10, 2005)

I dont


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 10, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I dont


That is OK then


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2005)

You have to read the fine print.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You have to read the fine print.


Always. It will catch you out every time if you dont.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2005)

Especially when using Credit Cards, band accounts or buying those supposadly "cheap" things online. Also never sign up for websites that supposadly only charge you once without reading the fine print. I have been cought paying for 2 years before because I did not.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Especially when using Credit Cards, band accounts or buying those supposadly "cheap" things online. Also never sign up for websites that supposadly only charge you once without reading the fine print. I have been cought paying for 2 years before because I did not.


Agreed Alder. Ouch!


----------



## MacArther (Oct 11, 2005)

How did we get off on this tangent? Weren't we comparing the P40 (winning) to the Hurricane?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 11, 2005)

MacArther said:


> How did we get off on this tangent? Weren't we comparing the P40 (winning) to the Hurricane?


 That happens here once and awhile - it'll drift back!


----------



## Tommy Enfield (Oct 11, 2005)

Well...it will be worth noting that the Russians liked neither!!!!!! and came to love the little P-39. I think the P-40 vs Hurricane issue is a matter of who was fighting who and the time frame, tactics and context of the air operations.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 11, 2005)

Tommy Enfield said:


> Well...it will be worth noting that the Russians liked neither!!!!!! and came to love the little P-39. I think the P-40 vs Hurricane issue is a matter of who was fighting who and the time frame, tactics and context of the air operations.



I agree with my latino bretheren but I must add its also the varaint of each of the planes. While not familiar with all of the different Mks of the Hurricane, once Curtiss introduced the Kittyhawk variants, the performance of the P-40 rose dramiatically, especially, like it has been said before the N versions of the Kittyhawk. Just as a measuring stick, the Japanese rated the P-40 as the best US fighter below 10,000 feet. I wonder how they rated the Hurricane. On the other hand, while I know that P-40s at different times were launched off carriers, there were carrier based versions of the Hurricane, which made it more versitile in this department.

:{)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 12, 2005)

I think that both aircraft were great for there time but I think the edge goes to the Hurricane. Personally I think this will just go down as personally bias for each person.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 12, 2005)

I agree. Its just that to me, the Hurricane seems to be the more versatile, more adaptive and more competent fighter. Lets not forget how easy they were to maintain also.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2005)

Good points on both sides - I think it's going to be based a lot on personal bias, although the cannon armed hurricane had an edge in firepower, if the P-40s strong points were able to be exploited during combat, I think I would roll with the P-40......


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 12, 2005)

Agreed on all of the above. Nevertheless one must admit that the P-40 had a much better press agent. 

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 12, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> Agreed on all of the above. Nevertheless one must admit that the P-40 had a much better press agent.
> 
> :{)



Yep - it was those guys who drew funny faces on their planes!


----------



## Tommy Enfield (Oct 12, 2005)

I agree in one point with flyboy, one of the most easily recognized air icons of World War II is a shark-mouthed P-40!!!! [including those flown by the RAF 112 Sqn]


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 13, 2005)

Sharkmouths will always be somethig that someone thinks about when they think about WW2.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2005)

"Shark" squadron's P-51s didn't look half bad either.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 15, 2005)

Nice pic pD!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 16, 2005)

Yes that is a nice pic. I like most aircraft that have a shark mouth on them.


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 16, 2005)

Then you'll like my new sig!


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> "Shark" squadron's P-51s didn't look half bad either.



Couldn't find in a flash, but there is a great photograph of Tex Hill getting into a P-51B or C and it has a grat shark mouth on it. Also the P-40s from the Alutians, I think led by Chennault's son, had the Eskimo shark icons on thier cowls. 

:{)


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 18, 2005)

Here's a good lookin' Mustang with a sharks mouth! Awesome!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 18, 2005)

sorry guys, it HAS to be done.........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 18, 2005)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 18, 2005)

and you guys thought 1 sharkmouth merlin was sexy!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 18, 2005)

4 is even better!


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 19, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> sorry guys, it HAS to be done.........



Wow!

:{)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 19, 2005)

amazing isn't it


----------



## starfish1 (Oct 20, 2005)

Notes on oper.sealion.

Germans couldn't have done it because(list reasons here)

They invaded Crete a year later.With just a fraction of thier total strength.A longer crossing too.Took huge percentage losses.

Victory.

British isles were a much larger prize.

Note the Germans fought at least some of the "air war"by landing ground troops,paratroops,and capturing the airfields.Are you sure that despite even intense losses,they couldn't have eliminated some of the British air power this way?

Even if you lost all your sea transport to the RN,if you got the armor across,couldn't captured supplies of petrol run them?
Ammunition?Like 37mm guns on thsoe tanks?Light.Couuldnt you fly the ammo over?
Not that there were many pieces of armor in britian left to fight.
Need artillery ammo?
That's what you have flying artillery for,right?

So the British would have fought hard?They were defeated in Norway,France,bounced all over N.Africa by a numerically smaller force of Germans,crushed by the Japanese,who had hardly any armor/heavy artilery.They had among the worst records of any major combatants in the war.

As for comparisons of aircraft.The germans needed some Zero fighters,with their 1000mile range.BofB over.Or even a5M's with their 800mile(?)range.BofB over.

The British were way overrated,in virtually everything.And that windbag(and drunk)Churchill has been way overrated.

WHO DO YOU THINK WAS DOING THE ACTUAL FIGHTING?ANYONE CAN TALK OTHER PEOPLE INTO FIGHTING TO THE LAST.

Brits were damn lucky the negotiations between Molotove and Hitler failed in late 1940.Throw the Russian Navy and Airforce into the fray(if Hitler could have gotten them in)and the Brits are invaded and destroyed in spring 1941.
Even without that,the Brit crummy army crushed by the Red army in iran,afghan,india etc etc.
And probably no involvement by U.S,which didn't want to fight Germany,Japan ,USSR all at once.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 20, 2005)

boy you have no idea how wrong you are! you jsut wait 'til pD reads this, or most others for that matter.......


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 20, 2005)

Theres an Ass-Clown born every minute.....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 20, 2005)

Indeed. Someone needs to do a bit more reading.


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 20, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Indeed. Someone needs to do a bit more reading.


Yes a lot. pD's reply should be interesting. I could reply but I won't (pD will have a much better one!) and it this off-topic, AGAIN! Thought Alder created a thread for this discussion?


----------



## plan_D (Oct 20, 2005)

I'm honoured that'd you'd all leave it to me. 

Operation Sea Lion couldn't be achieved because:

A) The Germans had no seafaring craft capable of taking the brute force of the English Channel. The Royal Navy could have sent a few minesweeps past the invasion force and the wash would have sunk most of their vessels. 

B) The Luftwaffe never achieved air superiority. The RAF defended the British skies perfectly, defeating the Luftwaffe in open conflict. The reasons are many, and a single mention of "Luftwaffe switch to cities" as being the only reason will make me laugh. 

C) The Kriegsmarine had no way of stopping the Royal Navy. At every point in the war, from start to finish, the German High Command feared the Royal Navy and with good reason. 

There's just three reasons why Operation Sea Lion would fail. 

On to Crete;

Crete was invaded by a numercially inferior force of German troops, correct. However, the Luftwaffe ruled the skies. The RAF had not one single aircraft on Crete, the last Hurricane leaving some days before. The AA defence on the island was minimal with a maximum of three light AA battalions defending the entire island, and that's if I'm being generous. 

They lost the entire first wave of naval invasion, including the Italian destroyer 'Luzo' - where was the Luftwaffe to destroy the Royal Navy then?

The Fallschirmjager lost up to 50% casaulties against a force of British and Commonwealth troops that weren't even equipped properly. There were 40,000 troops on Crete, but don't be fooled by the numbers. Most of those were Greek soldiers who had been evacuated from Greece, a vast majority had no weapons. Crete was a staging post to move those forces even further back and ultimately into North Africa. A staunch defence was never intended, yet the German forces lost so many that an airborne assault was never again considered. 

The Germans won the battle for Crete, but at high cost and the island had no tactical position whatsoever. It was a waste of manpower and resource. The Germans landed on that island with no risk of an enemy airforce and little enemy AA defence, the prime time to land airborne. 

------------------

"British Isles were a much larger prize," too damn right they were. And larger prizes cost more. The German forces needed for this larger prize would have been ten-fold of that needed to take Crete. The Germans just didn't have the vessels to invade. 

I am pretty sure the Luftwaffe couldn't have eliminated any air power by using Fallschirm to capture RAF airfields. The Fallschirm were used to capture bridges and airfields for the Germans own use, not to hamper the enemy. The Luftwaffe had to gain a local air superiority over any drop zone that would be used by the Fallschirm. This they would have never achieved over Britain and the Ju-52 carrying the much feared Fallschirm would have been shot out of the sky over the Channel. 

How do you plan on landing armour across the Channel in the first place? The Royal Navy could have stopped the first assault waves, they wouldn't need to cut off any German troops because none would make it ashore. 

If, however, some panzers made it ashore and were then cut off from home resupply British fuel dumps would not supply them. Any fuel dump that was in risk of capture would be set alight, depriving the panzers of any fuel. 

You can't fly ammo over if the enemy is shooting down your transport planes. And you cannot supply an entire army from the air. The British High Command were skeptical when Wingate proposed the idea of supplying a Corps strength force from the air ...but that did work. How did it work? A massive supply of C-47 'Dakota' and a massive fighter force to help them there and back. On top of that, the Army engineers built airfields behind enemy lines so the 'Daks' could carry more and land it in. 

You don't need armour to stop armour. But that said, the British and Commonwealth forces in Britain could have gathered enough armour to crush any German beach-head gained. The Matilda II was in all-out production and the Germans couldn't stop that tank with anything they had except the FlaK 18 36 88mm. 

'Flying artillery' isn't nearly as effective as real artillery. It's no where near as versatile or quick reacting. Plus, since the RAF had the air, what's going to bomb us? Those sitting ducks called Stukas?

I don't know whether I should laugh at such blatant ignorance or be annoyed by your anti-British sentiments ...and overwhelming stench of idiocy you possess. 

Norway; the British landed forces with the objectives of capturing Narvick and opening a land route to support Finland against the USSR. They landed with no heavy equipment. In the first naval encounter, the Royal Navy came out clear winners. Capturing a few supply ships and destroying some more with no loss to themselves. 

The British land forces met an enemy with artillery, air support and tanks. None of which they had themselves. It is no wonder the British (and French) forces decided it was best to retreat than waste the lives of many good men. 

The British kindly sent over 350,000 troops to France to aid in the defence of Europe. Not something it had to do but did nevertheless. The Wehrmacht assaulted France on the 10th May, 1940 with 3.3 million troops. The BEF had a total of 350,000 ill-equipped fighting soldiers with little armour and artillery that was going to quickly run out of shells. 

Despite this, the British handed the Germans their only set-back on the fields of France at Arras. This quickly prompted German High Command to send out the message; "Beware; these British have teeth ..." - from then on the Germans knew they weren't dealing with untrained and unencouraged soldiers. The retreat from Arras, and to Dunkirk only occured because the French had collapsed to their south and they ran the very true risk of encirclement.

This portion on the North African campaign made me laugh the most. You're right, the Germans did have a smaller army than the British ...but the Axis didn't. You seem to forget that Italy attacked the British first with an over-whelming superiority of 6:1. The British defeated them capturing 120,000 to a loss of 1,200 dead and wounded. When the Afrika Korps arrived the British were over-stretched and had just given up their best forces for Greece. 

Later on, the British again pushed the Axis forces back. Their best forces were then sent to Malaya, over-stretching the British forces and leaving them open to attack from Rommel. When Rommel was defeated at El Alamein, it was all over. The Anglo-American landings at torch were a mere formality to the outcome of the African campaign ...it had already been won by the combined efforts of the Desert Air Force, Royal Navy and 8th Army. 

The U.S forces were extremely impressed with the heart and courage of the British forces in North Africa. Many thought that British men were naturally insane ...and during those first few combats for the very green U.S soldiers, they were extremely glad to have us 'limeys' by their side. 

Everyone were crushed by the Japanese in the opening stage of the war. Even the U.S had to face it's own ignorance when that ignorance slapped it in the face. However, all those who had been shocked quickly recovered and fought back. The British halted the Japanese at the Indian border and pushed them all the way back through Burma, the longest advance in British history. 

Heavy artillery and tanks don't matter in a jungle war, it's an infantry war, not an armour war. Get some basic knowledge. 

Worst record? Britain lost, at most, 1.2 million people during World War 2. And besides Germany, they were in it the longest. 

This is an amazing example of your stupidity ...and don't expect me to avoid personal insults when you have insulted my country so obviously. 

You honestly think that the A6M would have won the war for the Luftwaffe? Honestly!? No, the Spitfire I was superior to the A6M in a dogfight and the Hurricane was probably equal. The A6M had the range but it didn't have the speed to combat the Spitfire on equal terms. They would have been dead meat, with no armour or self-sealing fuel tanks ...the eight .303cals would have ripped them to pieces. 

I see, Churchill has been over-rated? For what? For being the only person in Europe willing to stand up to Hitler? For being the only person in the world to have some guts and open the fight against Germany? For using much needed violence instead of diplomacy? For saving Britain? For being the only one that had sense enough to realise that Hitler and Stalin were threats? 

The British forces fought all over the world. From Abyssinya to Burma, from France to Iran and you think they didn't do any fighting? Come over to Britain and enjoy the kicking you receive when you say that in public. 

Do you know why the those talks failed? It was because Hitler hated Communists. Have you never heard of the Anti-Comintern pact? It's anti-Bolshevik ...anti-Communist ...it means Hitler was planning the destruction of Communists all along. 

And the Red Navy!? Hahaha! The Royal Navy was the largest in the world and the Red Navy was nothing but target practice. The Royal Navy would have blasted it out of the water with ease. The Red Navy didn't even have a single aircraft carrier!

And the Soviet Union attacks India from the hills ...with their massive armour ...in the jungles ...where armour can't roll? The Red Army would have been slaughtered in the jungles ...they hadn't a clue how to fight in them and would have suffered justly. Then, even if they did win ...there would have been a clash between Japan and USSR - which would end in Red Army defeat in jungles.


----------



## Udet (Oct 20, 2005)

Lancaster Kicks Ass:

Why leave the response to Plan_D? Can´t you produce your own thoughts to attempt proving someone wrong?

You sounded like my twin sisters, when we were little children, running to tell my father I just pulled their hair. 


Ok, right. Plan_D just issued a juicy reply to Starfish´s posting. Some good points there.

Noteworthy to mention is the fact Mr. Starfish´s posting pointed several true and goos points: Great Britain got defeated everywhere but in the air during the BoB of 1940.

France, Norway, Greece, Crete, North Africa. A significant record of defeats.

Sure the Germans did experience local setbacks during some of such campaings and battles: Narvik in Norway, Tobruk in North Africa (although a big australian friend of mine claims it was Australians and not the Brits, who first held the German onslaught, even though they will be crushed in the end), but overall, the Germans proved superior on the battlefield to the British.

German paratroopers in fact took terrible losses during Merkur (Crete), although most were shot while still in parachutes or killed when their Ju52´s were hit by AA fire. Was it valid? War is lawless, and you will do everything to gut the foe; it is not honest to claim being a better soldier when you were killing men that were still not capable of showing what kind of substance was it they were made of.

However, the number of them Fallschirmjager who touched the ground and got to their guns were fiercer (some of the fiercest and fearsome warriors) and most skilled than the defenders and smashed them, forcing them to evacuate the place. 

Wolfram von Richtofen´s VIII Fliegerkorps took full revenge on the Royal Navy: his stukas sent 3 cruisers and 6 destroyers to the bottom; not to forget are the 3 battleships which got badly mauled (HMS Warspite knocked out for many months), one carrier, plus 5 cruisers and 5 destroyers damaged, totalizing more than 2,000 British sailors killed and many hundreds more wounded.


Afria: Generalfeldmarschall Rommel commanded only an army corps in North Africa and inflicted a stunning defeat to the British Army in the region.


Finally, Wolfram von Richtofen...what a god damn brilliant and ruthless air force commander.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 20, 2005)

In 1940, Britain defeated Italy soundly in the campaign of Eygpt. While being out-numbered 6:1 as previously mentioned by me. Britain also held Somalia against superior numbers of Italian troops. 

The minor force of British troops on the Continent could not, honestly, be expected to destroy a complete force of the enemy. 350,000 vs. 3.3 million? 

It was largely the Australians who held Tobruk until relieved by British forces. No history denies that. However, Tobruk wasn't crushed until 1942 after the British and Commonwealth forces had pushed the Axis forces back through Benghazi. Benghazi was taken three times by the 8th Army, once off the Italians and twice off the combined Axis. 

The Fallschirm were excellent soliders, no one denies that. The fault of their tremendous loss was the fault of High Command, not the solider themself. That said, as always, the losses were up to 50% against a force of ill-equipped troops, with little AA and no air cover. Think of the losses caused on the same airborne troops had the forces on Crete had the right amount of AA cover and, at least, a squadron of Hurricanes to intercept those Ju-52s. 

The Fallschirm didn't force the evacuation. The Fallschirmjager still suffered heavily at the hands of the Allied forces on Crete when they hit the ground. The fact of the matter is, airborne troops cannot hold against a concentrated and determined counter-attack ...which the Allied forces gave them. The Allied troops were ordered to evacuate on the entrance of the second invasion fleet from Greece ...that is after the Royal Navy wiped out the first. 

Naval warfare doesn't go on losses or kills, it goes on control. And the Royal Navy held a tight grip on the Med throughout the entirety of the war. No navy or air force displaced them ...Royal Navy victory throughout. 

No, Rommel commanded all Axis forces in Africa. That includes three Italian armoured divisions plus several Italian infantry divisions. The Italians also provided the vast majority of the motorised transport in North Africa. 

And what the hell has this got to do with a P-40 Vs. Hurricane? Go start another thread if you want to reply to this.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 20, 2005)

Back to the original topic, If you compare the two aircrafts Earliest major air battles, Such as the Pacific AirWar and the Battle of Britain.

After Pearl Harbour The USAAF was sending rookie pilots in their P-40's to fight the well seasoned Japanese Pilots and their Zero's, 

For some time the U.S. Pilots were getting their asses handed to them,

Where as with the Hurricane there was alot of Pilots who came straight out flight school, straight to the Hurricane and straight towards a formation of German Bombers and alot of them manged to do quite a bit of damage to the Luftwaffe.

And my point is that Alot of nugget Hurricane Pilots did quite well with their plane whereas alot of the nugget P-40 pilots were wasted on their first tangle with the enemy,

So all of that is a result of good, Manouverability, Speed, Simplicity and maintainability and pure ruggedness. The Hurricane had all of that,
P40 had some of that but didnt have speed and agility and sure as hell wasnt simple and easy to maintain like the Hurricane was.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 20, 2005)

I believe you are forgetting the AVG who flew solely the P-40. Over China and Burma they achieved a healthy kill:loss ratio that was in their favour. Although I don't believe the AVG ever encountered the Zeke, they did encounter the Oscar which was more agile than the Zeke. 

The USAAF didn't suffer a dramatic loss as one might assume from reading the; "America was stunned ..." - "The U.S reeled from the Japanese blows ..." etc. etc. 

As has been shown previously on this site, the F4F's reputation has been greatly scarred by the misinformation from the general overviews of the PTO. While not wrong, they do not paint the correct picture for the fighters of the USN and USAAF. 

I'm sure someone else could provide solid statistics, but I'm pretty sure the P-40 gave out just as good as it got in the Pacific, if not better.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> For some time the U.S. Pilots were getting their asses handed to them





102first_hussars said:


> alot of the nugget P-40 pilots were wasted on their first tangle with the enemy,


WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!! The Japanese with the Zero and Oscar barley had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over P-39s and P-40s during the peak of their deployment (Go the the thread rising sun warbirds). I did an extensive research of USAAF kills and losses from Jan 42 through November 42. It showed that the USAAF held it's own over New Guinea and in some cases even the lackluster P-39 and P-400 was starting to score against the Zero and Oscar. The 39th FS had several aces emerge from flying P-39s. The USAAF did take losses during this period (off the top of my head about 150 aircraft for about 180 aircraft destroyed) but no way close to the image of propaganda shown here...  

Here's the topic link: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2322&highlight=

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but the actual combat loss records paints a very different picture - do the research!


102first_hussars said:


> P40 had some of that but didnt have speed and agility and sure as hell wasnt simple and easy to maintain like the Hurricane was.


In what way are you making that claim? Both had high performance V 12 engines that required similar maintenance. In repairing battle damage, fabric surfaces can be easier to repair but they are not as resilient as sheet metal, on the other hand, sheet metal repairs can be extensive depending where the damage is located.

Your making this statement to a mechanic who's done both - you're going to have to be more specific than that!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 21, 2005)

i know we're no longer talking about this but i think i can be forgiven for not letting this one slip..........



Udet said:


> Lancaster Kicks Ass:
> 
> Why leave the response to Plan_D? Can´t you produce your own thoughts to attempt proving someone wrong?
> 
> You sounded like my twin sisters, when we were little children, running to tell my father I just pulled their hair.



firstly, i had to go, i didn't have any time to make any more of a responce than that, i just wanted to give you an indication you were wrong

secondly, i will be the first to admit that pD is far more knowledgable on this subject than i am, it makes sence to let him answer, and he himself said he was honoured we left it to him to answer, he enjoys fighting with people like you

and lastly, i am only a boy of 15, i did not insult you or degrade you too seriously, yet at the first sign that someone dissaproves of you you lower yourself to the level or personal insults, doesn't that also seem like something small children would do? i could tell you what i think of you as i'm sure you could of me, but i'm not gonna beacause unlike you it would seem, i'm above that............


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 21, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i know we're no longer talking about this but i think i can be forgiven for not letting this one slip..........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well said pD. That was another reason I left it to him.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 21, 2005)

The one thing u have to remember when considering the early Pacific combat is that the Japanese planes were made out of wood and had no armor of self sealing fuel tanks...

Not exactly the hardest thing to set on fire....

A stray .50 cal bullet could and did light them on fire...

The P-40 did hold its own in the PTO....


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 21, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> The one thing u have to remember when considering the early Pacific combat is that the Japanese planes were made out of wood and had no armor of self sealing fuel tanks...
> 
> Not exactly the hardest thing to set on fire....
> 
> ...



What Japanese plane was made out of wood?

Certainly there were some parts of various planes made out of wood, particularly at the end of the war to save materials. The Ki-84-II comes straight to mind. However, I don't think that there were any Japanese types that were made from wood in the same was as, say, the Mosquito or the Ta-152 was.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 21, 2005)

"In what way are you making that claim? Both had high performance V 12 engines that required similar maintenance. In repairing battle damage, fabric surfaces can be easier to repair but they are not as resilient as sheet metal, on the other hand, sheet metal repairs can be extensive depending where the damage is located. 

Your making this statement to a mechanic who's done both - you're going to have to be more specific than that!!" 
_________________
"IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

Thats true but the Hurricane was obviously a much lighter aircraft with the same engine, its turning rate was much quicker and sharper than the P-40,
Though the P-40 was heavily armored the Zeke was also heavily armed,

Now another thing I forgot to add on my last post was the P-40 had a tendancy to turn off the side of the runway because the nose was so high off the ground, the pilot had a bitch of a time seeing the runway, whereas the Hurri didnt have that problem,


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 21, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> Now another thing I forgot to add on my last post was the P-40 had a tendancy to turn off the side of the runway because the nose was so high off the ground, the pilot had a bitch of a time seeing the runway, whereas the Hurri didnt have that problem,



That's common on any tail dragger - I could take you up in a Piper Super Cub and you have the same problem and I guarantee you the hurricane had the same problem. Watch old war documentaries - when you see WW2 fighters taxi they turn side-to-side so you could see over the nose. On take off You compensate for that my using peripheral vision, once the tail rises it's no longer a problem - tail dragger pilot 101.

Hod you you think FW-190D pilots flew????


----------



## evangilder (Oct 21, 2005)

I have sat in the cockpit of the Hurricane. I did not fly it, but I did sit in it. You cannot see over the nose during taxi. The nose issue would be the same on both. Also, the Hurricane and P-40 did not have the same engine. The P-40 had the Allison engine, the Hurricane had the Merlin. They were both V-12s, but they were not the same engine.

The empty weight difference is not that great, 5,500 lbs for the Hurricane, 6,000 for the P-40. Max takeoff weight was considerably higher with the P-40 though, about 7,300 lbs versus about 11,500 lbs.


----------



## Udet (Oct 21, 2005)

Lancaster Kicks Ass:

Well, I am 20 year old creature myself eh.

I did not throw any insults at you, much less degraded you at all.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 21, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > Now another thing I forgot to add on my last post was the P-40 had a tendancy to turn off the side of the runway because the nose was so high off the ground, the pilot had a bitch of a time seeing the runway, whereas the Hurri didnt have that problem,
> ...



Anyway Regardless the Hurri was in my opinion a better aircraft than the Warhawk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 22, 2005)

Udet you said to me



> Why leave the response to Plan_D? Can´t you produce your own thoughts to attempt proving someone wrong?
> 
> You sounded like my twin sisters, when we were little children, running to tell my father I just pulled their hair



sounds degrading to me........


----------



## evangilder (Oct 22, 2005)

Agreed Lanc.


----------



## jrk (Oct 22, 2005)

i have read a hard back book named german fighters over the mediterranean.some lovely black and white photos of me 109,s fw i90,s he-111 ju-88 and even me-410.

anyhow in the pilots accounts of their adversaries one pilot quoted that a tomahawk(p-40) in the hands of a skilled experianced pilot was more of a handful than a hurricane with experianced pilot.

however one must remember that the hurricane could turn inside of both the me-109 and spitfire.the struggle for the hurricane came in the form of the a6m zero which could also prove a handful for the p-40.

for pure diving speed though the p-40 holds the ace card.i saw a p-40 dive in a mock dogfight with a p-51 mustang at an raf finningley air show and the p-40 left the mustang for dead in the dive.it was only when the mustang got horrizontal that the kittyhawk was clawed back.

conclusion=wouldnt like to say on this one.


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 23, 2005)

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!! The Japanese with the Zero and Oscar barley had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over P-39s and P-40s during the peak of their deployment (Go the the thread rising sun warbirds). (quote)

TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!!!!!! In the Pacific the P-40s and the P-39s got bad press because of the lore of the Japanese planes. Many P-40s in the beginning of the war were shot down or damaged because they tried to turn with the Zekes, Zeros, and Oscars, but a pilot tried it only ONCE! Also my theory why the P-39s got such bad press was becuase of the P-400s and even then these planes did a bang up job as close support planes.

:{)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 23, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!! The Japanese with the Zero and Oscar barley had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over P-39s and P-40s during the peak of their deployment (Go the the thread rising sun warbirds). (quote)
> 
> TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!!!!!! In the Pacific the P-40s and the P-39s got bad press because of the lore of the Japanese planes. Many P-40s in the beginning of the war were shot down or damaged because they tried to turn with the Zekes, Zeros, and Oscars, but a pilot tried it only ONCE! Also my theory why the P-39s got such bad press was becuase of the P-400s and even then these planes did a bang up job as close support planes.
> 
> :{)



Are you agreeing wit me? I think we're saying the same thing  

Go to the thread I posted and then go to the site that shows AAF kills/ losses from Jan 42 through Nov 42 - there were only like 150 P-39s and P-40s lost for 180 Kills (Zeros and Oscars).


----------



## jrk (Oct 24, 2005)

CurzonDax said:


> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!! The Japanese with the Zero and Oscar barley had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over P-39s and P-40s during the peak of their deployment (Go the the thread rising sun warbirds). (quote)
> 
> TRUE, TRUE, TRUE!!!!!! In the Pacific the P-40s and the P-39s got bad press because of the lore of the Japanese planes. Many P-40s in the beginning of the war were shot down or damaged because they tried to turn with the Zekes, Zeros, and Oscars, but a pilot tried it only ONCE! Also my theory why the P-39s got such bad press was becuase of the P-400s and even then these planes did a bang up job as close support planes.
> 
> :{)




i take it you didnt read my full post?you only read the bit about the warhawk against the zero!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2005)

jrk said:


> CurzonDax said:
> 
> 
> > WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!! The Japanese with the Zero and Oscar barley had a 2 to 1 kill ratio over P-39s and P-40s during the peak of their deployment (Go the the thread rising sun warbirds). (quote)
> ...



Oh I read it JRK and agree - in the thread Rising Sun Warbirds I posted information where a USAAF squadron of P-40s twice decimated a flight of -109s with hardly any losses - You're very correct!


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 24, 2005)

Are you agreeing wit me? I think we're saying the same thing  

Yes I am agreeing with you. I just get tired of lets bash the American built plane.

:{)


----------



## CurzonDax (Oct 24, 2005)

Oh I read it JRK and agree - in the thread Rising Sun Warbirds I posted information where a USAAF squadron of P-40s twice decimated a flight of -109s with hardly any losses - You're very correct![/quote]

I was reading a Luftwaffe's ace bio, and I want to say it was Hartmann's but I am not sure. But, the first time he met a P-40 he had heard all the bad press about it, and on top of that he had learned some bad combat manner while flying aganst the Red airforce in 41-42. So he attacks this RAF P-40 and promptly gets his butt shot out of the sky. 

:{)


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

Dont think Hartmann got shot down by a P-40....


----------



## Udet (Oct 24, 2005)

I will not doubt the P-40 was a good plane.

However, the records of I./JG 27 upon its arrival to North Africa show the P-40s got scythed down by the 109´s.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2005)

I agree Udet... Just about every account and pilot bio/story I read about the Luftwaffe in Afrika say the same thing... Tomahawks dropping outta the sky..... It may have been due to tactics and not flight performance, but there were a sh*tload of P-40 kills....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 24, 2005)

YEP!!!!!!!


----------



## jrk (Oct 25, 2005)

and youre talking about 20mm cannon and 7.9mm mgs vs .50 cal mgs.yes p-40s did suffer against the emils cannon fire and tactics but and i say but she took a lot of cannon shells and still managed to get home.the warhawk was ruggedly built and took a lot of punishment.if you want an example read about clive "killer" caldwell.another point of comparisson the p-40 was a hell of a lot easier to bale out off compared to an emil.the emil was far too cramped and clostraphobic.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 25, 2005)

A repost - but nails home the point!!!

"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."

The P-40 took its lumps - it sure gave it out as well....


----------



## plan_D (Oct 26, 2005)

That is amazing and really has turned around my view of the P-40; in the hands of a decent pilot it was lethal. The Hurricane did achieve a decent kill rate against the Luftwaffe as well though ...and it was always out-numbered by a lot! (...something that a lot of people forget...)


----------



## jrk (Oct 26, 2005)

the hurricane could also take a s**tload of punishment and could still get home.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

Yep!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2005)

But I betcha the Hurricane was easier to repair...  Actually I dont know about the P-40's ease of maintenance, how was it?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> But I betcha the Hurricane was easier to repair...  Actually I dont know about the P-40's ease of maintenance, how was it?



They both had good and bad points - Sheet metal requires a bit more skill and could be more time comsuming. Fabric is easy to repair but is not as resilliant as aluminum, it also deterioates in weather - also the Hurricane had that welded steel tube fuselage frame - if bent, broke, or shot away could probably be a real b*tch to repair.

Airframe systems, the only thing I could see a bit complicated is the P-40s landing gear that reversed backwards upon retraction which meant there was either 2 actuators or a pressure cam that turned the landing gear rearward. Both had hydraulic flaps....


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A repost - but nails home the point!!!
> 
> "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."
> 
> The P-40 took its lumps - it sure gave it out as well....



One must remember though, that at this time of the war American "kill counts" were very inflated. Not to say that the P-40 didnt do well against the axis, cause it definitely did. 

Of crucial importance to this thread is, German pilots in Africa rated the P-40 a more dangerous opponent than the Hawker Hurricane.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2005)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > A repost - but nails home the point!!!
> ...



Dude - this action posted was one of the most touted P-40/ Me-109 encounters, I doubt there was any inflation - give credit where credit is due - this day the Luftwaffe got waxed!


----------



## Soren (Oct 27, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > FLYBOYJ said:
> ...



I wasn't talking about just 'one' of their actions, but the final overall score of the Checker-tailed P-40's. 



> give credit where credit is due - this day the Luftwaffe got waxed!



There are many occasions where the axis got "Waxed", and vice versa, and claims were inflated on both sides. The difference is the confirmation system, and by 43 the German system was more thorough than the Allied one.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 27, 2005)

> The difference is the confirmation system, and by 43 the German system was more thorough than the Allied one.


I'll definatly agree with that Soren...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2005)

I'll agree too - but the 325th had been pretty scrutinized - I think you're not going to find too much out of place....


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 27, 2005)

That I also will agree with...


----------



## jrk (Oct 27, 2005)

the hurricane was a better "killer" fighter when upgraded to the rolls royce merlin 20 engine and fitted with 4 20mm hispano cannon. 

that comparissson is made to the earlier hurricanes and the later hurricane 2b fighter bomber version.


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 8, 2005)

...Due to slight inactivity at Best Fighter, my liking of the aesthetic of the P-40 (Although I also greatly like the Hurri') my - 2cents... Historically Hurricane... Personally the P-40.

Hurricane was probably the most adapted (single engine) airframe on the planet. Stats on survivability would be misleading, as no other Allied fighter, was launched discarded, regardless of outcome, such as the cat-launched models. I know of few other aircraft, of the period, that started as a land based model, and then went to sea, largely unmodified (Seafire came after this worked with the Hurricane, and went through a much higher degree of modification; further, arguably, the Spit started life as a float plane racer). I greatly respect the Hurricane… 
However the '40, plane to plane (Hurri' 2C's firepower excluded) was overall a better 'fighter' (Maybe I'll Put Them Into My Tables), once the 'shark' mouth was applied by the Brits, a sharper looking piston engine fighter aircraft other than the P-40B/C has not been made (at least not one bearing a shark/tiger mouth). Oh, before I give stats as to why the ’40 bests the Hurri’... The '40 did 1st fly, as the '40, in Oct. 1938, after the Hurricane, but in reality it was a re-engine Hawk 75 (P-36) which 1st flew in April '35, but due to engine development problems, didn't meet spec 'till Feb. '37, with deliveries filling US foreign orders beginning in '38. Some interesting things about Don Berlin's design, as the Hawk 75, precursor of the ‘40 >
*French Hawk 75C-1 claimed the 1st Allied air victories of WW2.
*P-36s at Pearl claimed the 1st American air victories of WW2.
*Captured from the French, Norwegians, the Hawk actively served in the Finnish air force.
*Vichy French Hawk 75s were used against Allied forces in N Africa Syria, making it the 1st aircraft to actively serve on both sides, in two theaters.
Now the stats > > >
Speed is life > P-40B = 367 Hurri 2b = 340 Bf-109E = 345
Run Away Dive > P-40B = 480 Hurri 2b = 390 Bf-109E = 466
Best Roll Rate > P-40B = [email protected] Hurri 2b = [email protected] Bf-109E = [email protected]
Best Turn Rate > P-40B = [email protected] Hurri 2b = [email protected] Bf-109E = [email protected]
Initial Climb Rate > P-40B = 2860 Hurri 2b = 2950 Bf-109E = 3100

OK maybe there are no clear winners here, but the ’40 was competitive with the ‘average’ at the time it was a ‘front line fighter’, where it was better, speed, dive, it was in categories that left it’s pilot with choices it’s advisories pilot did not. But please, like most American fighters, don’t engage in a turn/stall fight with a ’40, roll, and dive or fly (speed) away, gain advantage, then come back in…


----------



## evangilder (Nov 8, 2005)

Goos analysis, Jon. They are both unsung aircraft of the war, durable and reliable. They lacked the glory that other aircraft like the Spitfire and Mustang, yet labored on. I think this is probably going to come down to personal taste as there is not clear winner.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 8, 2005)

evangilder said:


> Goos analysis, Jon. They are both unsung aircraft of the war, durable and reliable. They lacked the glory that other aircraft like the Spitfire and Mustang, yet labored on. I think this is probably going to come down to personal taste as there is not clear winner.


Good post Jon.

Well said Eric, it is just personal preferance.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

Yep - both of them were one ot the most underrated aircraft of WW2


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

That I will deffinatly agree with.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

> both of them were one ot the most underrated aircraft of WW2



does that sound odd to anyone else?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

Oh Lanc your grammer is not the greatest either!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

Me.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

OKay if FBJ thinks so then...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

hey adler, how come you managed to spam your way up to so many posts already?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 8, 2005)

8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2005)

Because most of my posts are legit posts, unlike yours.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

that was low man......


----------



## book1182 (Nov 8, 2005)

Let's keep it simple.

Guns: Tie - Hurricane; the different variations that it could care make it a a good fit for any fight, P-40 has those dependable .50cal.

Turn radius: Hurricane wins, can turn on a dime.

Dive: P-40 wins, could dive with the best of them.

Number of allied nations that flew P-40: all of them
Number of allied nations that flew Hurricane: 3-4???

WINNER P-40 WARHAWK

(Don't hold me to the nations that flew the Hurricane. It was just a general statement that the P-40 was flown by more nations.)


----------



## JonJGoldberg (Nov 9, 2005)

Reply to book1182>>>

As for firepower, I believe at times the edge, however small goes to the Hurricane, as the only time the Hurri is at a disadvantage, firepower wise (when comparing aircraft produced at the same time IE '40C Vs Mk IIb) is in comparing the 6x .50 '40 variants with the 12x .303 Hurris. However the rocket ready 4x Hispano 20mm Mk IIc, wins the firepower contest hands down, even if you feel like discounting the 2x 40mm Tank Buster Mk IIe.
As for nations that flew the Hurri... 
*Canada, with factory from '39
*Belgium, with factory
*Yugoslavia, with factory
*USA
*Turkey
*Poland
*Iraq
*Iran
*Portugal
...to name more than three, keep things mired in the muck of complexity. How many nations built P-40s? PS, check out my profile previous posting. PPS, Welcome!!!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 9, 2005)

book1182 said:


> Let's keep it simple.
> 
> Guns: Tie - Hurricane; the different variations that it could care make it a a good fit for any fight, P-40 has those dependable .50cal.
> 
> ...



Its a little more complicate than that;

Speed; P-40

Generally speaking the P-40 was faster than the Hurricane at most altitudes, but the advantage was less above 20,000 feet.

Climb: Hurricane

The Hurricane climbed to 20,000 feet faster than the P-40, taking about 8 minutes compared to the P-40's ~9. Initial rate of climb is also heavily in favour of the Hurricane.

Rate of Roll: P-40

The P-40 rolled significantly better than the Hurricane. However the Hurricane had exceptional responsiveness and balance in it alierons and harmony of controls, which make up for it somewhat.

Cockpit layout/visability: tie

Both had heavily framed cockpits and the limited foward vision of long nosed fighters.

Armament; Hurricane 

4 20mm Hispanos hose all over 6 .50 cals. The USN recokned that 1 20mm was equal to 3 .50 cals, giving the Hurricane approximately twice the firepower.

The Hurricane could haul 2 500lbrs or, more importantly, 8 rockets. While the P-40N could actually carry 1500lbs total, it never had the dedicated ground attack capability (rockes or 40mm Vickers)

Range; P-40

Range on internal fuel was roughly similar, about 500 miles. The Hurricane was only ever cleared for small droptanks (45 imp gal I think) which stretched its reange out to 1000 mile. The P-40, on the other hand, could reach about 1400-1500 miles with 3 drop tanks.


Reliability: tie

Both the Merlin and the V-1710 were excellent reliable engines. Both took to overboosting and modification very easily. The Hurricane was always one of the most serviceable and reliable British fighters of the war.

Armour/protection; P-40

The heavier construction and use of a completely stressed skin airframe meant that the P-40 was more rugged and resiliant to enemy fire than the Hurricane. It carried heavier weights of armour, which better protected its pilots.

Repairability; Hurricane

The Hurricane was an exceptionally easy airframe to maintain and repair. Its fabric construction on the wings and tailplane were remarkably easy to patch and repair.

Mulit-role capability: Hurricane

The Hurricane performed as a search and rescue plane, carrier fighter, catapault launched convoy escort, dedicated ground support fighter and anti-shipping fighter.

Ease of flight; Hurricane

The Hurricane was supposedly one of the most forgiving fighters in the sky. It was actually easier to handle than the Spitfire. It had very gentle departure characteristics and fairly easy recovery. It also had nice wide track landing gear and worked well as a carrier fighter.

The P-40 was well known for nastiness and pecularities in its stall regieme. It was also very troublesome in the stall, having a tendancy to cartwheel and flip end over end.

Useage: Tie

The Hurricane was used by Britain, France, Belgium, Australia, the Netherlands, Russia, Romanis, South Africa, Canada, Yougoslavia and Turkey.

The P-40 was used by New Zealand, USA, Britain, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, Egypt and France.

I'm still going to favour the Warhawk, but only by the smallest of margins. One on one, the Hurricane is probably a the better dogfighter. However, as WW2 was about a team effort and not necessarily about classic dogfights, the better speed, dive, roll and zoom climb of the P-40 would keep a sensible group of pilots safer and give them better results.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 9, 2005)

The Hurri never had 12 .303's they had eight, eventually the Hurri was stripped of 2 to add more room of the 2 underwing 20mm cannons not 40mm, and if your going to add such commonwealth countries at the time such as Canada,Turkey and Iraq, make sure you add South Africa, Libya, Egypt, India, ect.

Oh Russia made use of both the P-40 and The Hurri


----------



## plan_D (Nov 9, 2005)

The Hurricane IIB had twelve Browning .303cal. The Hurricane IID had two Browning .303cal and two Vickers-S 40mm cannon under-wing.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 9, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> The Hurri never had 12 .303's they had eight, eventually the Hurri was stripped of 2 to add more room of the 2 underwing 20mm cannons not 40mm, and if your going to add such commonwealth countries at the time such as Canada,Turkey and Iraq, make sure you add South Africa, Libya, Egypt, India, ect.
> 
> Oh Russia made use of both the P-40 and The Hurri



There were approximately 3000 Hurricane Mk IIBs built with the 12 x .303 armament in the UK, and another 400 or so made in Canada as the Mk X. Quite a few 12 gun Hurricanes were converted to 4 cannon armament after 1942, when the emphasis for the Hurricane switched to the fighter-bomber and ground attack roles. The Hurricane went straight from an all machine gun armament to an all cannon armament. 

The 40mm armed Mk IID and Mk IV had 2 .303s and 2 40mm Vickers anti-tank guns. The .303s were generally used for sighting the cannon, not as aerial weapons.

There were Hurricanes armed with 20mms and .303s together. There were several experimental installations of overwing and underwing 20mm Hispanos where the original 8 gun armament was retained. The Hispanos weren't even fitted into housings, just bolted to the top or undersurface of the wing. There are some great pictures of them in this months 'Flypast'.

However, even during the experimental trials during the Battle of Britain, no sesrial production Hurricane flew with a mixed Hispano and .303 Browning armament.

The Russians fitted a pair of 20mm ShVak and a pair of 12.7 UB in the wings of the Hurricane, trading weight of fire for some improvement in performance. By most accounts it was a fairly sucessful marriage, having more firepower than the majority of Russian fighters at the time. The Russians never really liked the Hurri, they felt that it was too slow to be competitive with the 109s and 190s and not as nimble and only marginally faster than the I-16s that it replaced in some units.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 9, 2005)

Good info guys!


----------



## MacArther (Nov 9, 2005)

I like the Hurricane for its role in the Battle of Britian, and as an anti-tank weapon, but I *still* think that the P40 was the better dog fighter. Dunno, maybe its a hometown bias  . Plus, the Hurricane was _fully_ developed, while the P40 was only developed as far as Curtis could make money.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 9, 2005)

The Hurricane wasn't fully developed, there were just better aircraft that were produced in favour of it.

The Hurricane Mk V would of been the ultimate production version. Fitted with a 1,700 hp Merlin 32, a four bladed propellor and the new universal wing of the Mk IV as well as other detail improvements, it would of been the most potent low-altitude Hurricane. Even with modifications though, it was recognised as obselete, and Hawker began concentrating on Typhoon development.

I'd say that the P-40 family was developed as much as the Hurricane, if not more. It went throught a long evolution of engine, cooling and armament fittings. It was produced in lightweight and longrange variants, converted for ground attack etc, etc. It went through sevice versions A to N, which certainly tells of a long developement.

Curtiss really botched P-40 production. The investigation of Curtiss-Wright, headed by Harry Truman, concluded that the P-40 was being produced to maintain a profit margin, not to benefit the war effort. It recommended that Curtiss be forced to stop making P-40s and start a P-51 (Allison engine) production line. However, C-W had already failed at attempting to manufacture the P-47, so the recommendations were essentially ignored.


----------



## MacArther (Nov 9, 2005)

Yes, but search the internet for the XP-40Q. Curtiss's main hiearchy may not have saw fit to improve the fighter much, but obviously some of the engineers had other ideas.

PS Post a compairson pic of the final hurricane (prototype) and the final P40 (prototype)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

Jabberwocky said:


> Repairability; Hurricane
> 
> The Hurricane was an exceptionally easy airframe to maintain and repair. Its fabric construction on the wings and tailplane were remarkably easy to patch and repair.



Fabric could be easy to repair but it's not resilient and will rot. If the Hurricane took a hit in the welded steel tube that makes up the fuselage, the damage has to be cut and a new section welded into place, not as easy as it sounds. Although mild steel is pretty easy to weld, it is prone to stress cracking if not properly relieved after the weld is completed.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 9, 2005)

MacArther said:


> Yes, but search the internet for the XP-40Q. Curtiss's main hiearchy may not have saw fit to improve the fighter much, but obviously some of the engineers had other ideas.
> 
> PS Post a compairson pic of the final hurricane (prototype) and the final P40 (prototype)



I know all about the P-40Q. I also think that it was a waste of time developing it, as the P-38, P-47, P-51 and P-63 were superior to it in almost all respects, and were already in serial production. Also, it wasn't just a couple of engineers doing it by themselves. The P-40Q was developed over several years and multiple prototypes, not something that goes on without complete company approval. 

With the P-40Q, I think Curtiss was desperately trying to squeeze more performance out of a design in 1944 that they should of abandoned in 1940/41. If they had redesigned the P-40 from the ground up, with a longer fuselage, larger vertical surfaces, improved cooling and airscoop and added a turbocharger, then it would of been competitive. Something like they did with the XP-60A, but a little more radical than just redesigning the wing to take 8 .50's and adding a GE turbocharger. Look at how the P-35 evolved into the P-47 and the performance enhancements there, something like that type of change was needed. 



As for the Hurricane and repairability. I still maintain that the Hurri would of been less maintence intensive and repairable for light battle damage, but more vulnerable to heavy battle damage. The CRO in the UK would rebuild/repair damaged Hurricane airframes in very short amounts of time. Hurricane repair times were much short than those for Spitfires, which due to its stressed skin construction, required more work for similar amounts of damage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 9, 2005)

Light battle damage, I agree, any big damage to the welded tube, it's CRO time!

I think by the time the P-40Q came to be the AAF had enough with Curtiss...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> that was low man......



I know, wasn't it!  



102first_hussars said:


> The Hurri never had 12 .303's they had eight,



You are saying?

Hurricane armament:

*Hurricane IIA Series 1:* 8 × 0.303 inch (7,7 mm) guns

*Hurricane IIA Series 2:* Hurricane Mk IIA fitted with 4 × 20 mm Hispano cannons

*Hurricane IIB:* 12 × 0.303 inch (7,7 mm) guns

*Hurricane IIC:* 4 × 20 mm cannons 

*Hurricane IID:* 2 × 40 mm Rolls Royce BF cannons, 2 × 0.303 inch (7,7 mm). The 40mm Rolls Royce BF cannons were later replaced by 2 × 40 mm Vickers 'S' cannons.

*Hurricane IV:* 2 × 0.303 inch (7,7 mm) Browning guns with provisions for 2 × 40 mm cannons, or 2 × 500 lb (227 kg) bombs, or Smaal Bomb Carriers, or 8 × 60 lb (27 kg) air-to-surface rockets, or 2 smoke-laying installations.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 11, 2005)

And I thought that Hurricane IIB's 12x .303's were well known about...obviously not


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

No I think that most people know about the 12x .303's.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 11, 2005)

yeah they just had the 8 in the normal positions on the wings (in sets of 4) and then each wing had an extra two mounted further out..........


----------



## R988 (Nov 12, 2005)

Didn't the Hurricane have metal wings from the BoB onwards? I know the early ones had fabric wings and probably still a fabric body. Most of the damage would probably have been on the wings though.

Also saying Australia used the Hurricane is a stretch, they had one, which was a refugee from the fall of Singapore, and it was mainly used as a hack.

Essentially the Hurricane was a 'turn and burn' aircraft while the P40 was more of a 'boom and zoom' fighter. Not many aircraft could outdive the P40 until the P47 came along, though the FW190 was probably an equal on the axis side.

The germans rated the P40 as a more danerous opponent compared to the Hurricane, I'd say the same with the Japanese. The Hurricane would have to fight a turning fight with a Zero and would pretty much be deat meat in that battle since it didn't have the speed advantage over the Zero. 

The P-40 could and did employ the Boom and Zoom tactic against the Zero, which didn't have the speed to keep up, nor the armour to survive. This tactic was developed by the AVG but was employed across the USAAF after suffering losses with engaging the Zero in a turning fight.

Also there were some P40 versions, which had a merlin engine so maintainence would be similar to hurricane in the engine dept. at least. I don't think the Allison 1710 was particularly troublesome though, the P40 didn't have the Turbo version like some others, though it would have been vastly better in performance if it did, especially at high altitude.

The British apparently wanted to replace their Hurricanes with P40s in North Africa. The P40s kill/loss ratio was superior to the Hurricane (then again the Brewster Buffalo has one of the most impressive K/L ratios of the war!) and if it was my butt on the line I'd go with the P40 being more survivable than a Hurricane, only just though, as the Hurricane also has a reputation as a very sturdy aircraft.

So in the end I'd go for the P40 having a slight edge on the Hurricane as far as facts and combat record go, as for personal opinion I have a soft spot for both aircraft, both of whom bore the brunt of the early war years for the allies and both of whom are largely unrecognised for their substantial contributions to holding back the axis invasions.

Here's a few links on both aircraft that make interesting reading if you haven't come across them before
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p-40_vs_zero.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/p40.htm
http://www.chuckhawks.com/hawker_hurricane.htm

also some more interesting articles on other aircraft on this site
http://www.chuckhawks.com/index3.naval_military_history.htm


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2005)

Nice Post, nice pics and welcome R988!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 12, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Nice Post, nice pics and welcome R988!


Agreed. Welcome R998.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 12, 2005)

Good post. Welcome aboard.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2005)

welcome R998, can i just ask what makes you say that the hurricane didn't have a speed or manouverability advantage over the Zero? above 275mph the zero had the manouverability of a 4 engined bomber! anything could turn inside her and the hurricance could maintain this speed it a dogfight if the pilot knew what he was doing, also the zero would fall apart with 4x20mm trained on them (some MK.IICs served out there i believe), why would the hurricane have to fight a turning fight with a zero?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

Nice post there. Welcome


----------



## R988 (Nov 13, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> welcome R998, can i just ask what makes you say that the hurricane didn't have a speed or manouverability advantage over the Zero? above 275mph the zero had the manouverability of a 4 engined bomber! anything could turn inside her and the hurricance could maintain this speed it a dogfight if the pilot knew what he was doing, also the zero would fall apart with 4x20mm trained on them (some MK.IICs served out there i believe), why would the hurricane have to fight a turning fight with a zero?



The hurricane and zero had similar top speeds, though I agree the hurricane was better at speed than the zero, it was only marginally faster. The hurricane probably wouldn't be able to dive at high speed due to its non metal construction and I have heard it was also not exactly an easily handler at high speeds (I am willing to be corrected on this) so either way it would be difficult to outrun a zero, and turning fights almost always end up at low speeds, unless of course the flyer is an excellent pilot but that is not very common.

Also in the ETO the hurricane was very much a turning fighter, and all the RAF pilots would have been used to that sort of engagement and when they came to the PTO they suffered heavy losses against the the Zeros. The pilots were not overly experienced and not well informed on how to tackle a zero and they were decimated. Even the Spitfire had a lot of trouble with it for a while. For pure combat record the Hurricane vs Zero is very much in favour of the Zero.

Interestingly the RAAF used both the P-40E and Spitfire Vb and tested them against each other and concluded they were both as good as each other. In fact aside from it's lack of high altitude performance the P-40 should really be compared in the company of the Spitfire and 109, and if they hadn't diverted all the turbos to bombers then it probably would have been quite good at altitude, same with the P-39.

Perhaps a more likely comparison for a Hurricane would be the F4F Wildcat, both are more evenly matched with the Hurricane appearing to have the advantage on paper but the Wildcat has the better combat record. I believe Eric Brown looked favourably on the Wildcat, or Martlett if you want, in comparisons with both. But that's probably for another thread. 

Perhaps my final word on the Hurricane is that it was better as an interceptor/bomber destroyer/mutirole aircraft than a pure fighter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2005)

we've had the F4F Vs. hurricane discussion, i don't really think a clear winner was decided but i think the hurricane may had edged it..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

I doubt the all wood construction would keep it from diving any more than than anyother aircraft. The Mossie was made of wood it did not have any real disadvantages, infact it was superior to a lot of aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 13, 2005)

R988 - good stuff but Eric Brown?!?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2005)

Yes Brown is not the greatest source.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 3, 2006)

Very interesting discussion.

The wood on the Mossie was specially made/selected and very well built DerAdler.

The Zero's was apparently very crap.

I don't have any info on the Kufurst's wood quality, what a pity.


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 3, 2006)

The Mosiquito was a dismal failure in the Pacific / Indian regions for one little fault.

Due to high humidity the glues had the wee habit of de-laminating.

Rather embarassing in a low level attack one would think.  

Didn't read the whole thread yet, but has anyone pointed out that the british in Africa were the first one to use the "Tiger Mouth" on their p-40's. The Flying Tigers asked permission and recieved it from the Squadron concerned to use it on their planes.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> The Mosiquito was a dismal failure in the Pacific / Indian regions for one little fault.
> 
> Due to high humidity the glues had the wee habit of de-laminating.
> 
> ...


"One of the AVG saw an article on the British 112 squadron, RAF, serving in Africa. That RAF unit had added a sharkmouth to the nose of their US supplied P-40s, and the AVG decided to do the same. They also had a Disney designed "Flying Tiger" painted on each plane."

I don't think there was a need to ask permission, I think both units were rather busy at the time to worry about such formalities....


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Aug 3, 2006)

The Moosies glue problem was later solved though.

The Brits actually nicked the idea from the Me110 Zerstorer units, so they were hardly in a position to give permission!


----------



## k9kiwi (Aug 3, 2006)

From **** Rossi's recollections as a Flying tiger



> The Sunday edition of the "Times of India" carried a color photo in its magazine section of an RAF plane in North Africa with the shark mouth painted on it. It was an instantaneous hit with our whole group and within days all our planes were adorned with it. It fit the P-40 perfectly.



I sit corrected.

Hows the Moosie? has he glued his hornies back on yet?


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 4, 2006)

k9kiwi said:


> The Mosiquito was a dismal failure in the Pacific / Indian regions for one little fault.
> 
> Due to high humidity the glues had the wee habit of de-laminating.
> 
> ...



The adhesive deteoriation of the Mossies in the Pacific is actually just a combination of caution during the wethering trials by the RAF, a rash of structural failures completely unrelated to the glue, stubborness at DeHaviland and a health dash of urban legend. 

6 Mosquitos went to Burma in April 1943, right at the beginning of the wet season. Three of them underwent 3 months of weathering trials. 

Despite fears of the casein glue would deterioriate, the glue actually proved quite all right in the weather, apart from some problems with the fuselage skin warping, which was traced back to maintence, not the glue so much.

The worst problems actually occured not because of any glue problems but because a defect had arisen in the construction of the wing, causing one of the main load bearing joints (Rib 12 about 6 feet from the wingtip) not to mate properly with the plywood skin. Between Jan and July 1944 the RAF in Europe lost about 16-20 Mosquitos to wing collapse, mostly later built FB VIs and NF XIIIs but also some other types. The cause was eventually traced to construction methods at the Hatfield and Leavesden factories. 

The Mossie was actually highly sucessful in the CBI theatre and the Pacific as a fighter bomber and fighter-recon aircraft. After beginning operations in July, the first loss in theatre was a Mk II in early November after one failed to return from a PR soThis was one loss after about 120 sorties, a reasonably acceptable ratio.

The Mossie was so sucessful in the Far East that by January 1944 the Air Ministry decided to equip 22 bomber and strike squadrons with Mosquito FB VIs, replacing Beaufighters and Vengances. Hardly something they would do if they type couldn't operate in the Pacific. By July there were 4 FB squadrons and 2 recon squadrons with Mosquitos and more transitioning.

I have some amazing photos that were taken in Burma by Mosquitos flying at roof top level. There is even one of Japanese soliders caught having morning breakfast on the verandah of their quarters. Mosquitos would regularly fly 8-10 hour recce sorties with standard 50 gallon wing tanks and 2 90 gallon Hurricane drop tanks on the undersides. Late in the war (July 1945) the PR 34 made an apperance in theatre, capable of taking around 1400 gallons of fuel bestowing a phenomenal 3400 mile range.


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 4, 2006)

Any chance you could post those pic Jabber? I wouldn't mind seeing them.


----------



## JF3D (Aug 4, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree, good points for the Hurricane - my sources showing both aircraft with the ability to carry a 500 pound bomb load as well.
> 
> Found out as well the Tomahawk IIB carried 380 rpg for it's four wing mounted .50s. The P-40E carried 281 rpg for it's 6 .50s.....



Not to be picky and I haven't gotten all the way to the end of the thread BUT B/C models of the P-40 had 4 .30 cals in the wings with two .50's mounted to fire through the propeller arc. The sync mech. significantly lowered the rate of fire of the nose guns. I don't have the round count for them. I would have liked to have seen a couple of squadrons of Tomahawks go screaming through a raid of He 111's during the BOB though. 8)


----------



## JeffK (Aug 4, 2006)

I havent read all 20 pages, but are we comparing the Hurricane I, in combat in 1939 1940 where it often bested the bf109E with the P-40E.

The basic P-40 (Hawk 81 first flew in Oct 1938), the Hurricane in November 1935 and only ordered into production in April 1939.

By Sept 1940, only 200 P40 were in Service, this is at the height of the Hurricane's greatest challenge, the Batle of Britain. The first combat by the RAF with P-40B (Tomahawk I) was by 112 Sqn in the Western Desert as a Fighter Bomber.

So this comparison is between Cheese Chalk, the P40 being a few years younger could take advantage of improved engines and weapons (Though I've never seen one with Rockets or a 40mm AT gun) whereas the Hurri had passed its prime and was relegated to the minor theatres. A better comparison would be against the P-36/Hawk 75, still a bit younger than the Hurri.

Someone mentioned the RAAF trials between the P40E SpitfireVc, comments included the fact the Spits paint job was rough, and took some sped off, the bloody Vokes filter handicapped the Spit and the Spit used was from 1 OTU where the trainee pilots burned the stuffings out of the engine. But the P40E/Kittyhawk Ia was a solid aircraft and RAAF USAAF pilots regulary fought Zekes Hayabusas over Darwin, Port Moresby Milne Bay with success.


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 4, 2006)

JeffK said:


> Someone mentioned the RAAF trials between the P40E SpitfireVc, comments included the fact the Spits paint job was rough, and took some sped off, the bloody Vokes filter handicapped the Spit and the Spit used was from 1 OTU where the trainee pilots burned the stuffings out of the engine.



true, although I've read that many of the new Spitfires went to the OTU's while the front line squadrons (452,457,54RAF) kept rotating through their overhauled ones. However I agree Jeff, the air vokes filter was probably the biggest disadvantage.


----------



## JeffK (Aug 4, 2006)

Wildcat,

Its official designation is the "Bloody Vokes Filter"


----------



## Wildcat (Aug 5, 2006)




----------



## kiwimac (Aug 5, 2006)

Hurricane.

I was interested to see that the Yugoslavians fitted a captured Hurri with a DB-601 engine and found that so engined, it outperformed the 109E in take-off and climb-rate and had a slightly better performance in the turn.

Source

Kiwimac


----------



## Marcin T (Aug 5, 2006)

Personally i'll prefer Hurri , even that P40 has a better performance ( p40 was newer).


----------



## pattle (May 11, 2013)

For me this is good example of how difficult it is to compare different types of ww2 aircraft. Aircraft technology was moving at such a fast pace during world war 2 that no matter how much better a new type or variant of aircraft was compared to others around at the time it was introduced that it could soon find itself bettered by another new type. With this in mind I feel there is only one real comparison to be made between these 2 aircraft and that is between the Hurricane MkII and the Tomahawk MkIIb (which was the first P40 to be produced in significant numbers). In July 1941 the Tomahawk MkIIb was the first model of P40 used by the RAF to be preferred over any Hurricane variant as a fighter, so my opinion is that up until July 1941 the Hurricane was a better fighter than the P40 but not after. Having said that the Hurricane MkII entered RAF service earlier than the P40 (September 1940) and was nearly always preferred over the P40 as a ground attack aircraft. 

Looking at it again from a different angle I think in it's time the Hurricane was a better fighter compared to it's adversaries than the P40 was in it's time. In 1940 the Hurricane was probably the third best fighter in the world behind the Spitfire MkI and Me109e, but by the time a year later when the P40 finally blossomed it was up against the FW190, P38, Spitfire VB, Hawker Typhoon, Me109F and Zero. If the Americans had known they were going to need a fighter then maybe they would have developed the P40 sooner and maybe of had many more of my favourite the P38 Lightning at hand. If the Americans could of given us some Lightnings (complete with superchargers) during the Battle of Britain to use instead of Hurricanes against the ranks of German Bombers then I think the results would have been absolutely staggering.


----------



## CobberKane (May 12, 2013)

I think the Lightning as a 'what if' option for the BoB would have been tricky - maintaining such a complex aircraft with production lines on the other side of the Atlantic would have been a mighty tall order. What the Brits needed were competitive indigenous designs, and that's what they got with the Hurricane and Spitfire.
With regards to the Hurricane V P40 thing, they co-served in the PTO, MTO and ETO. I understand the Russians weren't hugely impressed with either. The British apparently preferred the P40 in the desert, though this may have had something to do with availability. In the Pacific the P40 seems to have done better than the Hurricane, perhaps because it's diving speed was better and gave it at least one area of significant superiority against the Zero and Oscar.
Overall I'd go with the P 40. Maybe the Hurricane could out-turn it, but the P -40 could still out-turn any of their common opponents which the Hurricane could. The Hurricane might have been better at altitude, but at altitude they were both outperformed by their common opponents anyway. The Hurricane might have been able to out-dive a zero, but it couldn't dive with a 109, and the P-40 could. Outside the hypothetical scenario of the BoB, I think the P-40 was the better fighter. At the end of the day though, neither ever existed at a time when they weren't significantly outclassed by various enemy fighters; their tactical use often involved putting them in theatres where they hopefully wouldn't run into quality opposition - but when the opposition turned up anyway, it was the P-40 that most often outdid itself.


----------



## RCAFson (May 12, 2013)

The Hurricane I could outclimb and out turn the P-40, but the P40 was faster under 25k or so, IIRC and could out dive the HH.
The Hurricane II could outclimb and out turn the P40 and was faster above 20k or so, and had a much higher ceiling. The HHII could serve as a high altitude interceptor but the P-40 would have been less successful in this role.


----------



## pattle (May 12, 2013)

The p38 scenario was only really a what if type thing and you can talk about what ifs all day. I think when I wrote the P38 Battle of Britain scenario I had in mind that we needed something with a heavier punch to bring down the bombers in the Battle of Britain than the rifle calibre machine guns of the Hurricane and Spitfire of the time, which leads me to add that the first P40s were lightly armed and unlike the Hurricane of the time were not considered fit for combat in western Europe. Development mostly ended on the Hurricane in 1940 with the MkII and Hawkers moved on to the Typhoon, Curtiss on the other hand continued to develop the P40 long after 1940 first with the Tomahawk II and then with the Kittyhawk. You have to remember that the P40 Tomahawk and P40 Kittyhawk were very different aircraft, the Tomahawk having an Allison engine and the Kittyhawk having a Merlin engine in a lengthened fuselage, both aircraft having evolved from the earlier radial engined Curtiss Hawk. Tomahawks and Kittyhawks should not really be talked of as the same thing anymore than Typhoons and Tempests are. I suppose you could say that the P40 was better than the Hurricane because of it's development potential, but then again the Hurricane was based on a much earlier bi plane fuselage. The P40 was clearly the better aircraft in it's later marks due to it's development but it in its earlier marks it was inferior to the Hurricane, had the RAF had the model of P40 being produced at the time of the Battle of Britain instead of the Hurricane the battle would have been more difficult to win. From memory I think that the RAF had a number of P40s around at the time of the Battle of Britain that were originally from a French order but chose not to use them.


----------



## CobberKane (May 13, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Back on topic.....
> 
> "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"


 
Great results both, but I don't think maximising the P-40s strengths alone was enough to turn it into a 'lethal' opponent for LW fighters. To get to the lethal level you would also have to rely on your opponent fighting dumb: in the encounters you mention the American pilots later noted that for some unknown reason the Germans abandoned their usual dive and zoom tactics, where they were superior to the P-40s, and instead elected to engage in turning fights, the one parameter in which the P-40 was clearly superior.
Gotta luv the P-40, a real trooper of an aircraft. But the only time it was ever going to get results like this against 109Gs or 190As is when the LW pilots negate the superiority of their aircraft with bad tactics. That said, in the right hands the P40 demonstrated many times that it was capable of very quickly turning the tables on either of those German fighters if the pilots got complacent.


----------



## drgondog (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> The Hurricane I could outclimb and out turn the P-40, but the P40 was faster under 25k or so, IIRC and could out dive the HH.
> The Hurricane II could outclimb and out turn the P40 and was faster above 20k or so, and had a much higher ceiling. The HHII could serve as a high altitude interceptor but the P-40 would have been less successful in this role.



Pretty much true - except the comparison re: high altitude performance nearly irrelevant as the dominant envelope for both was zero (plus 10) to 15,000 feet.


----------



## RCAFson (May 15, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Pretty much true - except the comparison re: high altitude performance nearly irrelevant as the dominant envelope for both was zero (plus 10) to 15,000 feet.



Over the UK 20,000ft was pretty common and over the SWP/Darwin the P40 was often forced to climb above it's comfort zone.


----------



## Juha (May 15, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Over the UK 20,000ft was pretty common and over the SWP/Darwin the P40 was often forced to climb above it's comfort zone.



But IIRC did anyway fairly well.

Juha


----------



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2013)

> the Tomahawk having an Allison engine and the Kittyhawk having a Merlin engine in a lengthened fuselage



Actually, both the Kittyhawk and Tomahawk had Allison V-1710 engines. The only P-40s with Merlins (Packard V-1650-1s) were the P-40F and L models; the RAF did not operate either variant.



> The British apparently preferred the P-40 in the desert, though this may have had something to do with availability



Not so much availability, but more to do with unsuitability for operations in Europe, although in saying that, there were Army Co-op units operating the Tomahawk in the UK in mid 1942 until superceded by the Mustang I.


----------



## RCAFson (May 16, 2013)

Juha said:


> But IIRC did anyway fairly well.
> 
> Juha



Not really:


> First priority naturally went to the defense of Allied bases, a burden which fell upon the fighter units at Moresby and Darwin. Over both points the enemy bombers usually came in at 22,000 feet and above, too high for satisfactory interception by P-40's, P-39's, or P-400's, the only fighters available to the AAF in the Southwest Pacific, and their limitations seriously affected Allied operations.64 During July the P-39 had made contact with enemy bombers only four times in a series of nine raids despite a thirty-minute warning; in sixteen actual contacts it never once enjoyed an altitude advantage and the Zero invariably could outclimb and outmaneuver this fighter, which suffered the additional disadvantage of increased vulnerability because of the location of its motor behind the pilot. The P-40 was somewhat better, but it, too, was outperformed by the more nimble enemy fighters, particularly at high altitudes. Inferior performance of their planes lowered the morale of the pilots.65 It was true that the Allied planes were more rugged and less inflammable, they could outdive the Zero, and if given warning to permit them to reach sufficient altitude they could achieve creditable scores, as they did on 30 July over Darwin when twenty-seven P-40's shot down six Zeros and two bombers at the cost of one P-40.66 But pilots continued to be frustrated, as on 17 August, when for the seventy-eighth time enemy bombers struck Moresby in an attempt to disable their favorite target, Seven-Mile Airdrome. Although defending fighters had received adequate warning, they were unable to intercept.67


HyperWar: The Army Air Forces in WWII: Vol. IV--The Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan [Chapter 1]


----------



## pattle (May 16, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Actually, both the Kittyhawk and Tomahawk had Allison V-1710 engines. The only P-40s with Merlins (Packard V-1650-1s) were the P-40F and L models; the RAF did not operate either variant.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was the Kittyhawk mk2 (p40f) that had Merlin engines and was used by either the RAF, RAAF or SAAF.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 16, 2013)

The 'US hundred thousand states' that no Kittyhawk II (equivalent of the P-40F) were issued to the UK; 100 went to USSR, 25 to the Free French, 81 was shipped to the USAF in North Africa, 1 to N. Zealand.


----------



## CobberKane (May 16, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> ...1 to N. Zealand.



Which remains the high water mark of New Zealand's aerial strength to this day.


----------



## pattle (May 16, 2013)

I have just spent half an hour on the net trying to get to the bottom of all this and have discovered that only a few of the merlin engined p40's reached the Commonwealth Airforces such as the one pictured in the attachment. The thing that I can't understand is why there were long and short fuselage versions of the same marks and also why the RAF gave different marks of the P40 the same designation.

The picture by the way is of a P40 from an RAAF Squadron.


----------



## altsym (May 16, 2013)

Longer fuse was better at controlling unwanted yaw, which short fuse P-40's were famous for. They tried fixing it on the 'K' by
adding a fillet, but IIRC it didn't work out to well.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2013)

> I think it was the Kittyhawk mk2 (p40f) that had Merlin engines



The RAF did not operate the Kittyhawk Mk.II.



> Which remains the high water mark of New Zealand's aerial strength to this day.


 

There are actually TWO P-40s in New Zealand now, I'll have you know, as well as two P-51s, two Spitfires, Two Yak-3s, an FG-1 and an Fw 190 (all airworthy).


----------



## CobberKane (May 17, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> The RAF did not operate the Kittyhawk Mk.II.
> 
> 
> 
> There are actually TWO P-40s in New Zealand now, I'll have you know, as well as two P-51s, two Spitfires, Two Yak-3s, an FG-1 and an Fw 190 (all airworthy).


 
I've heard of those aircraft. I think collectively they are referred to as the RNZAF


----------



## nuuumannn (May 17, 2013)

> I think collectively they are referred to as the RNZAF



Auntie Helen's private airline.


----------



## nincomp (May 17, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> I've heard of those aircraft. I think collectively they are referred to as the RNZAF


I am glad to hear that the RNZAF finally got rid of those obsolete biplanes!


----------



## nuuumannn (May 19, 2013)

> I am glad to hear that the RNZAF finally got rid of those obsolete biplanes!



Well, not _all_ of them!












The World's only surviving Vickers Vincent; front line equipment in the 1941 RNZAF. The same chappie has the remains of a Blackburn Ripon torpedo bomber, which he intends on restoring.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 20, 2013)

While the Hurricane was great, the Warhawk had better armor, roll rate, firepower, and outright speed. That said, the Hurricane could out turn the P-40 fairly easily.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 20, 2013)

Pictured above: New Zealand's most recent fighter under construction.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 20, 2013)

Procrastintor, I think you're oversimplifying things here. Your comparison is highly dependent on the variants being compared. For example, the early P-40B/C variants didn't have much, if any, firepower advantage over the early Hurricane MkIs (4x30 cal and 2x50 cal compared to 8x303). For later variants of the MkII Hurricane, I'd compare their 4x20mm cannon favourably against any armament combination in the P-40 family. 

Outright speed is also highly dependent on altitude and while the P-40 probably did better at lower altitudes, there probably wouldn't be much in it at higher altitudes. Also, the performance differential between the early variants of both aircraft was probably less than the case with the later marks of Warhawk.

Now, it must be borne in mind that the Warhawk had more growth potential - the fact that it remained in front-line service from 1941 thru the end of the war is indicative of that. However, the Warhawk simply wasn't available en masse when the Hurricane was most needed during the first 18 months of the war in Europe.


----------



## RCAFson (May 20, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Outright speed is also highly dependent on altitude and while the P-40 probably did better at lower altitudes, there probably wouldn't be much in it at higher altitudes. Also, the performance differential between the early variants of both aircraft was probably less than the case with the later marks of Warhawk. .



A. A.E.E. testing showed that the early P-40s were slightly slower than the HHII but somewhat faster under 15000ft. Typical maximum speed was ~330mph at ~15000ft.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 20, 2013)

Yeah, my paragraph wasn't well worded. I was trying to say that the early P-40 variants probably didn't have much performance advantage over the Hurricane, and certainly not at high altitudes. Lower altitudes, yes but the performance gap increased as later P-40 variants became available.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 21, 2013)

Buffnut, while the P-40 wasn't much good high altitude, the Hurricane's performance (in respective models/marks, mind you) didn't start to see any improvement over the P-40 until between 15k and 20k feet depending on the models in question. And as for the armament, the 4x 20mm Hispano's in the Hurricane model you are talking about had far less ammunition and were slightly less accurate then the P-40's .50's. No denying the Hurricane was a fantastic plane, but between it and a Warhawk I'd pick the P-40 every time.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 21, 2013)

But the early P-40s weren't equipped with totally with .50s - there were only 2 of those and the other 4 were 30 cals. That's much less hitting power than the 6x50 cals in the later variants. Given that the P-40B/C was still in extensive service when the Hurri MkIIC became available in numbers, I think my comment of "it depends on the variants being compared" is still valid.

As for the altitude performance, the Hurricane gained ascendency over the P-40 in the 15f-20K ft range but was superior at all altitudes above that to the Hurri's upper ceiling limit. So the performance comparison is highly dependent on the nature of the combat. Over the Western Desert where aircraft typically flew at lower altitudes, the P-40 had a clear advantage. During the Battle of Britain where fights extended to well above 20,000ft I'd prefer the Hurricane.

Both were great aircraft and, as I've said before, the P-40 had much more growth potential because, frankly, it was a generation later in design concept than the Hurri.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 21, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> Both were great aircraft and, as I've said before, the P-40 had much more growth potential because, frankly, it was a generation later in design concept than the Hurri.



Which tends to show just how far behind the Hurricane was. The "first" P-40 (OK, Hawk 75 with radial engine) flew exactly 6 months BEFORE the Hurricane. Engine was more than just a bit of a dud though and the Hawk began it's long and often troubled search for an engine. 
The Hawk may hold the record for most different engines/engine-supercharger combinations ever used on ONE air frame.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 21, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Engine was more than just a bit of a dud though and the Hawk began it's long and often troubled search for an engine.



Whereas the Hurricane was a viable combat aircraft pretty much from the beginning. It took the RAF a while to figure out that armour plate to protect the pilot was a good thing, and the changeout of fabric wings for metal and the installation of variable pitch props were vital upgrades but the essentials of firepower, engine performance and rugged build were all there from the beginning. I'd argue the Hawk family didn't really get into its stride until the P-40D...but that's just another opinion.

The Hurricane may have been behind from the design perspective but it delivered the required performance when it was most needed...in 1940.


----------



## wuzak (May 21, 2013)

buffnut453 said:


> During the Battle of Britain where fights extended to well above 20,000ft I'd prefer the Hurricane.



I'd prefer the Hurricane over the P-40 in the BoB too. Mainly because they were actually available!


----------



## Shortround6 (May 21, 2013)

A few of the Hawks from 1940 might be an interesting comparison. Six .30 cal mgs with more ammo total than the Hurricane. Again, unfortunately for the Hawks the Cyclone with the 2 speed supercharger tended to have oil problems while the Twin Wasp usually only had a single speed supercharger. Engine used in the Martlet II III was supposed to be good for 1000hp at 14,500ft. Not quite as good as the Merlin III but in the hunt. 

few Mohawks lasted in combat in India until 1944 which is certainly past their " best use" date.


----------



## RCAFson (May 21, 2013)

> Compared with the claims recorded in 11,400 traceable air to air combat reports (form 1151), covering all RAF fighter pilots' claims, 55% were by Hurricane pilots, 33% by Spitfire pilots and 12% by pilots of other fighters.



Mason, Hawker Hurricane, p211.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 26, 2013)

Apparently, in the early Pacific campaign, modifications to both the available Hurricane II's and the P-40Es to improve their performance, especially desirable when intercepting escorted enemy bombers was not uncommon and suggests that attempts to make comparisons based strictly on factory stock airframe tests may be a bit misleading. I believe both the Commonwealth Air Forces and some individual USAAF pilots made modifications to their fighters in an attempt to counter both the IJAAF and IJN bombers and fighters. According to Shores et al., (Bloody Shambles) the RAF reduced the Huricane IIB's 12 .303 MG to just the innermost two in each wing, while Batrsch states that (only?) John Brownwell in the PI pulled the two outer 0.5" guns from his P-40E when flying recon missions from Mindanao airfields. Later, (according to Ferguson and Pascalis) at least one pilot (George Kiser) of the 49th Fighter group defending Australia resorted to similar modifications and was apparently more successful. I assume a Hurricane IIb with the improved Merlin but only 4 .303's would be a more sprightly performer as would a P-40D compared to the heavier 'E.' It would be interesting to discover just how widespread such field modifications were and whether the practice extended to the ETO or MTO. I've attached a photo from an earlier post by another forum member (couldn't find his identity or the original post) showing USAAF 49th FG Pilot Joe KIng with his P-40E (or it might be a K) with what appears to be two outboard guns removed.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 26, 2013)

Oldcrow, the real question is how many pilots ADDED guns to their planes, imagine it, a P-40 with all 6 .50's in the wings plus two more over the engine, and some 20mms in under-wing pods. Or a Hurc with a 37mm AT gun under the fuselage.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 26, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Oldcrow, the real question is how many pilots ADDED guns to their planes, imagine it, a P-40 with* all 6 .50's in the wings plus two more over the engine, and some 20mms in under-wing pods. Or a Hurc with a 37mm AT gun under the fuselage.*



 Max Ceiling 10,000' ? Climb rate 600 ft/min? I kid. The Hurricane apparently could accommodate a 40 mm AT cannon without a serious performance penalty and at some point both aircraft were hauling bomb loads equal to the weight of such gun suites. But I suspect such modifications work better when air superiority is achieved and sustainable.


----------



## drgondog (May 26, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Oldcrow, the real question is how many pilots ADDED guns to their planes, imagine it, a P-40 with all 6 .50's in the wings plus two more over the engine, and some 20mms in under-wing pods. Or a Hurc with a 37mm AT gun under the fuselage.



That would be zero unless Pappy Gunn did something unpublished..


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 26, 2013)

drgondog said:


> That would be zero unless Pappy Gunn did something unpublished..



Glad you mentioned Pappy's name Drgon, I was just reading that his biography was written by no less an authority than General George Kenney. That alone tells you something about the importance of his contributions to the Pacific Theater air war. It's a miracle Gunn survived the first three months of the war! He was a legend in his own time.


----------



## tyrodtom (May 26, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Oldcrow, the real question is how many pilots ADDED guns to their planes, imagine it, a P-40 with all 6 .50's in the wings plus two more over the engine, and some 20mms in under-wing pods. Or a Hurc with a 37mm AT gun under the fuselage.



It would be pretty hard to put fuselage guns in a fighter that wasn't designed with that in mind. Too much in the way that has to be moved elsewhere, and of course, sychro gear installed to keep your propeller.
I don't think anyone ever adapted a 37mm to sychronized fire.
Plus you've got to be able to bring all that firepower into range of a enemy aircraft to put it to use. 
Early allied aircraft main problem was getting what armament they had close enough to a enemy to use it. Adding more weight to the aircraft by increasing armament would make that even worse.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2013)

Procrastintor said:


> Oldcrow, *the real question is how many pilots ADDED guns to their planes,* imagine it, a P-40 with all 6 .50's in the wings plus two more over the engine, and some 20mms in under-wing pods. Or a Hurc with a 37mm AT gun under the fuselage.



Zero

1. They would not have the authorization to do so.
2. Hard to just add guns to a plane in places it was not designed to have them.
3. The kind of weight they would add, would affect performance and CG.


----------



## Greyman (May 27, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Zero



I'll have you know the RAF had a common field modification that involved a boot-mounted Webley.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2013)

Greyman said:


> I'll have you know the RAF had a common field modification that involved a boot-mounted Webley.


That field modification was approved by someone in the MOD before it was done, I think that's the point here.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 28, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That field modification was approved by someone in the MOD before it was done, I think that's the point here.



I think he was making a joke. The Webley is a revolver. Boot mounted...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 28, 2013)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think he was making a joke. The Webley is a revolver. Boot mounted...


----------



## pattle (May 28, 2013)

According to The Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete an RAF pilot once shot down his Italian opponent using his revolver!


----------



## altsym (May 28, 2013)

If I was flying a Gloster Gladiator I'd be better off firing my Revolver too! I kid.. I kid..


----------



## CORSNING (May 28, 2013)

Procrastintor,

That is an absolutely beautiful painting of a P-40N and A6M5 at the bottom of your posts. I particularly like the overall colors. But I have one question sir. Why is the centerline gas tank installed backwards? I saw that once before on the same exact aircraft on the cover of Squadron/Signal Publications AIRCRAFT NO. 26 (CURTISS P-40 in action). It was a painting also. Is there some significance to the reverse positioning of this tank?

Extremely curious, Jeff.


----------



## pattle (May 29, 2013)

Interesting question Corsning and well spotted, but I have no idea. Perhaps the fat end of the tank weighed more when full and it helped to have the weight further back?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 29, 2013)

It looks kool?

Does anybody have PHOTO with it being backwards? 

It may have more drag if mounted backwards.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 29, 2013)

Ask Wurger, he made it for me. I'll try to find some info though.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 29, 2013)

As far as I can tell, it was a semi-regular occurrence in the 80th FG in the CBI.I have only found one photo so far, and the URL won't work.


----------



## Procrastintor (May 29, 2013)

Also, the human skull on the front looks pretty awesome.


----------



## CORSNING (May 29, 2013)

Wurger did an excellent job of setting you up with that one. I see an interesting topic like this one and it throws me into a couple of weeks of research. Over on Mike's sight there is a graph on the Hurricane I with a boost of +12 lbs. Initial climb rate of 3445 fpm. and 3,515 fpm at 6,560 ft. Now that was moving for 1940. The heading states, " The following performance estimate for the Hurricane I is a consolidation of various aircraft and engine performance data sets and was kindly provided by Henning Ruch." I really do not have anything to add other than that graph projects the fastest climb of any Hurricane that I have seen in print. With the high lift wings of that bird I wouldn't begin to doubt the graph.
I did a workup of the graph on the P-40N-1 with the help of focus points on that graph. While it is absolutely true that by March of 1943 the P-40 could not be considered a first rate world class air superiority fighter, it was still in the lethal category if taken for granted by an advisory. The following figures are from the graph/chart at wwiiaircraftperformance sight.

P-40N-1
V-1710-81 / 1,480 hp. / 57"Hg
Height (meters), Speed (mph), Climb (fpm), Time to height (minutes)

Sea Level. 332 / 3520 / -----
1,000.......346 / 3600 / --.91
2,000.......360 / 3680 / -1.82
3,000.......374 / 3465 / -2.72
4,000.......376 / 2965 / -3.79
5,000.......373 / 2480 / -5.01
6,000.......367 / 2025 / -6.44
7,000.......363 / 1635 / -8.35
8,000.......354 / 1265 / 10.76
9,000.......350 / 940 / 13.59

Maximum velocity: 378 mph / 10,550 ft.
Maximum climb: 3,720 fpm / 8,000 ft.
Armament: 4 x 0.05 in.
Combat Weight: 7,413 lbs.
Wing Load: 41.42 lbs. / sq.ft.
Power Load: 5.009 lbs. / hp.

Note: Like the FM-2 able to outturn the Ki-61.

I have seen the speeds of later P-40Ns published at 350 mph and 343 mph. I did not have to do much digging to find out that these were the true speeds of much heavier aircraft with bomb pylons and gas tank shackles in place at military rating (not combat). There, and that's how I see that.


----------



## bobbysocks (May 29, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> It looks kool?
> 
> Does anybody have PHOTO with it being backwards?
> 
> It may have more drag if mounted backwards.



i imagine it would be the same as reversing an air foil so it would have 2 to 2 1/2 times more drag as if mounted the correct way.


----------



## DVH (Jun 2, 2013)

P40 or hurricane?
Well I'll go by looks, and that will be the the p40.
One of the best looking piston fighters ever. A perfect canvas for nose art. I even like the shape of the tail fins.


----------



## Wurger (Jun 2, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> It may have more drag if mounted backwards.



Rather less of the drag. Therefore modern jet planes have "sharp" noses.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 2, 2013)

Curtiss P-40N Warhawk 10AF 80FG 89FS W49 Burma Banshee 1943-45

.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 2, 2013)

Nice find Chris. Looking down the flight-line, the first six have the fuel tank mounted in the usual manner. Experimental?

Geo


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2013)

One would think the ground clearance is getting a little iffy with the reversed tank. 

Airflow and drag can change with speed. Without flight test or wind tunnel it is hard to say if it would bring any improvement.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 2, 2013)

It looks like there's more hardware between the aircraft and tank than just the support lug or lugs, sway braces and fuel connection.
Could that be some sort of spray system ? Smoke screen ? The turned backward tank would increase turbulence at the back and maybe increase dispersion of what was being sprayed.
Is the tailwheel on that P-40 the same as others?


----------



## Wurger (Jun 2, 2013)

The tail wheel seems to be the standard one for all P-40Ns


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 2, 2013)

Thanks Njaco, the pictures are in squadron/signal AIRCRAFT NO.26 pages 49 and 50. I just haven't figured out how to scan and post.
Thanks again Chris, Jeff.


----------



## Procrastintor (Jun 2, 2013)

Wow, I have been looking for days and hadnt found a pic, Chrislock Holmes does it again!


----------



## altsym (Jun 2, 2013)

Perhaps it has something to do with CG rather then Drag? The large blunted area of the drop tank now facing backwards will produce a low pressure area, and thus, more drag.


----------



## pattle (Jun 3, 2013)

Perhaps for some reason they wanted the drop tank to tumble through the air when dropped rather than fall nicely, I don't know enough about aerodynamics to know if it would have tumbled it is just an idea. Maybe it was just easier to put them on backwards?


----------



## wuzak (Jun 3, 2013)

Wurger said:


> Rather less of the drag. Therefore modern jet planes have "sharp" noses.



The rear is as important as the front to prevent turbulent airflow, which causes drag.


----------



## 1968billsfan (May 25, 2017)

Well a few things to point out that have not been mentioned. 

[1] To those praising the hurricane for being better because of all the modifications made..... well the British had a very limited number of alternates in production or existence to use for light ground attack aircraft or bomber destroyers.(Beaufighter) They did buy and use US Boston bombers, A-20, Ventura and Baltimore bombers and converted the hurricanes with 20mm and 40mm guns. Perhaps this was done not because it was such a wonderful airframe, but because it was available and not worth a lot as a short ranged fighter?

[2] Bombers are tough to bring down. Rifle calibre rounds are not very useful, so the standard Hurricane armament is poor for that. 13mm and 20mm are good. 20mm is not a good choice for dogfighting because of the slow rate of fire and weight of the gun. You have only a second of firing time, so a big gun can not put many bullets at the target and the heavier gun hurts the performance of the airplen. The 50 calibre (13mm) is the best comprise for dogfighting and that was the main weapon for the P-40. The 20mm and 40mm Hurricanes were not intended for dogfighting but as cheap bomber destroyers and light ground attack. Comparing the explosive effect of these specialized weapons with lighter 13mm weapons meant for dogfighting is not valid.

[3] The Hurricane success in the BoB was a special situation that the P-40 seldom was offered. With radar, they were allowed to have an altitude advantage and a loiter time advantage. They had plenty of targets to select from or to disengage from- so they could pick their battles and fight when they had the advantage. The targets that they were defending were quite resilant ones- grass airfields and large cities, so there was never a need to fight to the bitter death. They were fighting over friendly ground, so they survived minor damage, whereas the Germans were always fuel limited and in danger of going down from minor damage on the trip home over the Channel. Note also that they were NOT asked to be the air superiority fighter, since that was the short ranged Spitfire's job. So the hurricanes could do the dive shoot and zoom away method against slower bombers, or decide not to engage. (The American volunteer P-40's in China did have an early warning system and did quite nicely against the Japanese) .... By the way, there are very few instances of the hurricane being used successfully as a bomber escort over enemy territory- a role that the P-40 was often asked to perform.

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


----------



## buffnut453 (May 25, 2017)

Oh dear....so much to say about those comments:



1968billsfan said:


> [1] To those praising the hurricane for being better because of all the modifications made..... well the British had a very limited number of alternates in production or existence to use for light ground attack aircraft or bomber destroyers.(Beaufighter) They did buy and use US Boston bombers, A-20, Ventura and Baltimore bombers and converted the hurricanes with 20mm and 40mm guns. Perhaps this was done not because it was such a wonderful airframe, but because it was available and not worth a lot as a short ranged fighter?



One could apply exactly the same arguments to the P-40. It was extensively used in the ground attack role because it could not perform at the altitudes demanded in western Europe. Where it did perform well was those theatres where operations were undertaken at lower altitudes. Even then, it was seldom the primary air superiority fighter of choice.




1968billsfan said:


> Bombers are tough to bring down. Rifle calibre rounds are not very useful, so the standard Hurricane armament is poor for that. 13mm and 20mm are good. 20mm is not a good choice for dogfighting because of the slow rate of fire and weight of the gun. You have only a second of firing time, so a big gun can not put many bullets at the target and the heavier gun hurts the performance of the airplen. The 50 calibre (13mm) is the best comprise for dogfighting and that was the main weapon for the P-40. The 20mm and 40mm Hurricanes were not intended for dogfighting but as cheap bomber destroyers and light ground attack. Comparing the explosive effect of these specialized weapons with lighter 13mm weapons meant for dogfighting is not valid.



The 50cal was only a good air-to-air weapon from late 1942 onwards. Every (yes EVERY) US fighter had problems with wing installation of 50 cals until around August of that year. The issue with Buffalos is frequently reported but problems also occurred with F4Fs, P-40s and even early P-51s. At the time of the Battle of Britain, the 50cal was a non-starter because it simply could not be trusted to operate reliably in fighter installations. Your statement about the 20mm "not intended for dogfighting" is simply WRONG. That weapon was used in every front-line RAF fighter from the Spitfire MkVb onwards through to the end of the war. You may not prefer it as a weapon but it absolutely WAS implemented as a dogfighting weapon.




1968billsfan said:


> The Hurricane success in the BoB was a special situation that the P-40 seldom was offered. With radar, they were allowed to have an altitude advantage and a loiter time advantage. They had plenty of targets to select from or to disengage from- so they could pick their battles and fight when they had the advantage. The targets that they were defending were quite resilant ones- grass airfields and large cities, so there was never a need to fight to the bitter death. They were fighting over friendly ground, so they survived minor damage, whereas the Germans were always fuel limited and in danger of going down from minor damage on the trip home over the Channel. Note also that they were NOT asked to be the air superiority fighter, since that was the short ranged Spitfire's job. So the hurricanes could do the dive shoot and zoom away method against slower bombers, or decide not to engage. (The American volunteer P-40's in China did have an early warning system and did quite nicely against the Japanese) .... By the way, there are very few instances of the hurricane being used successfully as a bomber escort over enemy territory- a role that the P-40 was often asked to perform.



Radar provided early warning but the ability of the Hurricane (and Spitfire) to get up to altitude rapidly was a vital attribute...just ask the pilots of 11 Group (who, incidentally, would ardently disagree with your contention that the Hurricanes had an altitude advantage). The P-40 would have been a liability under the conditions pertaining in the summer of 1940.

"Never a need to fight to the bitter death" and "decide not to engage"? Really? So the pilots went up for the fun of it and didn't attack enemy formations if they didn't like the look of things? Have you read any contemporary reports from the Battle? The pilots of Fighter Command understood that if they gave way, the consequences would be monumental given the collapse of France just a few months beforehand. They went into the fray with all they had, often at a severe tactical disadvantage both numerically and from an altitude perspective. The war was going badly and the British Empire was alone in fighting Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Loss of the Battle of Britain would have left all London exposed to almost unopposed air attack, which probably would have brought down the Churchill government...and who knows where that would have left the world. This absolutely WAS a fight to the bitter death. It was a fight for survival which Fighter Command HAD to win.

"NOT asked to be the air superiority fighter"? Yes, the PLAN was for Spitfires to engage the Messerschmitts while Hurricanes took on bombers...but, as is so often the case, the plan did not survive contact with the enemy. The messy reality of air combat meant that frequently Hurricanes took on Messerschmitts. The fact that the Hurricane scored more kills than all other RAF fighters COMBINED strongly indicates that it absolutely was asked to be the air superiority fighter.

As to not being used as a bomber escort, how about the campaigns in France, North Africa, Malaya and Burma where they were often used in that role?


I have no problem with the contention that the P-40 was a better airframe than the Hurricane. It was, after all, a more modern design using monocoque rather than frame-and-fabric construction. Compared to the Hurricane, the P-40 had the advantage of 3 years' additional design/development time before its first flight. There was a further advantage of it starting combat operations some 18 months after the Hurricane (and this was with the RAF - its first operational use with the USAAF came another 10 months after that). However, let's base our arguments on more realistic factors than those you cited.

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


----------



## RCAFson (May 25, 2017)

Oct 1941 USAAC comparison of Hurricane II and the P-40E:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf

and other types, including the P-39, P38, and Spitfire V.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (May 25, 2017)

Interesting reading. Shame it doesn't identify the mark of Hurricane or Spitfire since that has a big impact on performance.


----------



## RCAFson (May 25, 2017)

buffnut453 said:


> Interesting reading. Shame it doesn't identify the mark of Hurricane or Spitfire since that has a big impact on performance.



The USAAC had published memos on the Hurricane IIA in Sept 1941:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_II_Z-2974_Level.pdf
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_II_Z-2974_Climb.pdf

So I suspect that it was a Hurricane IIA but I don't have any guesses as to which Spitfire V variant was used.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (May 25, 2017)

Buffnut adressed this, I'll just add my two cents about this particular part:



1968billsfan said:


> ...
> 
> [2] Bombers are tough to bring down. Rifle calibre rounds are not very useful, so the standard Hurricane armament is poor for that. 13mm and 20mm are good. 20mm is not a good choice for dogfighting because of the slow rate of fire and weight of the gun. You have only a second of firing time, so a big gun can not put many bullets at the target and the heavier gun hurts the performance of the airplen. The 50 calibre (13mm) is the best comprise for dogfighting and that was the main weapon for the P-40. The 20mm and 40mm Hurricanes were not intended for dogfighting but as cheap bomber destroyers and light ground attack. Comparing the explosive effect of these specialized weapons with lighter 13mm weapons meant for dogfighting is not valid.
> ...



We don't have much of a say what was valid to compare between air-combat wepons, since that was done by people whose it was the job in many countries.
With that said: The cannon (earstwhile different 20mm jobs, later sometimes moving to bigger and/or faster firing canons) became a preferred weapon. Even before the war of 1939, cannon was a main airborne gun in 3 major airforces of the world.
This is before noting that not all 0.50 in class weapons were created the same.
The notion that 'you have only one second of firing time', thus a cannon is out of question is also very questionable. So is a notion that one can install one .50 instead of one cannon and somehow improve it's kill probability just because on that. The heavy 0.50, 6 of them, along with their heavy ammo and mounts, were ones of main culprits for the P-40E being a slow aircraft that was also bad in climb.


----------



## stona (May 25, 2017)

1968billsfan said:


> [2] Bombers are tough to bring down. Rifle calibre rounds are not very useful, so the standard Hurricane armament is poor for that.



In 1940? I suspect that the crews, at least those who survived, of the roughly 1000 Luftwaffe bombers lost would disagree with you.

I doubt that the survivors of the 870+ Bf 109s and Bf 110s lost would think that rifle calibre machine guns were anything less than effective against them either.*

Much is made of the Bf 109 Es cannon armament, but the aircraft only carried about 7 seconds worth of ammunition for them. After that it was reduced to just two machine guns and was seriously outgunned by both the RAF's principle day fighters.
It's easy to criticise the eight gun fighter with hindsight, but it was not developed randomly, but rather as a result of much debate, analysis and testing. It is self evident that it had a limited future as bomber armour increased, but in the BoB it was very effective. It is also significant that generally the fighters the eight gunnners replaced were armed with just two rifle calibre machine guns.

* Overall losses from BoBT&N, numbers vary, but the overall result is always similar. Obviously not all those aircraft were lost to Hurricanes or Spitfires, but a significant proportion were.

Josef "Beppo" Schmid shared your opinion of British fighter armament. In an August 10th 1940 report he concluded that it was so poor that Luftwaffe bombers would be able to operate in day light over the UK mainland. He was wrong about that, as well as much else.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 25, 2017)

1968billsfan said:


> Well a few things to point out that have not been mentioned.
> 
> [1] Perhaps this was done not because it was such a wonderful airframe, but because it was available and not worth a lot as a short ranged fighter?
> .



It was an airframe which could be used, stable and capable of carrying other weapons, it ceased to be a front line fighter in the Autumn of 1940, by that I mean being capable of holding its own against the best the enemy had.



1968billsfan said:


> [2] Bombers are tough to bring down. Rifle calibre rounds are not very useful, so the standard Hurricane armament is poor for that. 13mm and 20mm are good. 20mm is not a good choice for dogfighting because of the slow rate of fire and weight of the gun. You have only a second of firing time
> .


We are discussing the Hurricane which faced three bombers Ju88 He111 and Do17. It was noted that the Ju88 was becoming more protected and difficult to bring down during the BoB but Hurricanes and Spitfires were perfectly capable of bringing down any bomber they encountered. As I understand it it was expected that a bomber should be taken down if hit by a 2 second burst, the basis of this was the reason why guns were increased from 4 to 8.



1968billsfan said:


> [3] With radar, they were allowed to have an altitude advantage and a loiter time advantage. They had plenty of targets to select from or to disengage from- so they could pick their battles and fight when they had the advantage. The targets that they were defending were quite resilant ones- grass airfields and large cities, so there was never a need to fight to the bitter death. They were fighting over friendly ground, so they survived minor damage, whereas the Germans were always fuel limited and in danger of going down from minor damage on the trip home over the Channel. Note also that they were NOT asked to be the air superiority fighter, since that was the short ranged Spitfire's job. So the hurricanes could do the dive shoot and zoom away method against slower bombers, or decide not to engage. (The American volunteer P-40's in China did have an early warning system and did quite nicely against the Japanese) .... By the way, there are very few instances of the hurricane being used successfully as a bomber escort over enemy territory- a role that the P-40 was often asked to perform
> .


With very little respect, this is bordering on fantasy where do you get it from. The range of both the Spitfire and Hurricane were only short ranged in comparison to P51s and maritime fighters, pilots returned to base in the BoB because they were short of ammunition or targets. Spitfires engaging fighters while Hurricanes took on the bombers is one of history's most enduring myths. 



My two cents is that the Hurricane was the base model in monoplane design, all other allied planes mentioned were more advanced, but they weren't there. In performance it could out turn its competitor in a momentary not sustained turn but little else. Its one saving grace is that it was basic, easy to build and fly and just good enough. The British sent hundreds to France but those remaining still formed the major part of the RAF during the BoB. It had many faults, a shortage of them was never a problem. Post 1940 it found a use in ground attack, but that was the fate of all fighters even the P51 and Corsair were used in ground attack. The P40 could not have won the BoB, neither could the Spitfire. The Hurricane could have done it completely alone simply by not sending so many planes and pilots to France.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 26, 2017)

1968billsfan said:


> [2] Bombers are tough to bring down. Rifle calibre rounds are not very useful, so the standard Hurricane armament is poor for that. 13mm and 20mm are good. 20mm is not a good choice for dogfighting because of the slow rate of fire and weight of the gun. You have only a second of firing time, so a big gun can not put many bullets at the target and the heavier gun hurts the performance of the airplen. The 50 calibre (13mm) is the best comprise for dogfighting and that was the main weapon for the P-40. The 20mm and 40mm Hurricanes were not intended for dogfighting but as cheap bomber destroyers and light ground attack. Comparing the explosive effect of these specialized weapons with lighter 13mm weapons meant for dogfighting is not valid.



A lot packed into a short paragraph. 
Leaving out all the axis aircraft and the Russian aircraft lets examine what is left. As noted in 1940 the eight rifle caliber machine guns in the Hurricane did a pretty good job. They would have done even better *IF *the guns had been concentrated and not had their fire spread out so much in the hopes of making up for poor marksmanship which brings us to #2. If marksmanship and training are such that pilots are opening fire at 900yds or more instead of the instructed 300yds the type of armament makes little difference although long firing times gives the pilot a chance to get closer before running out of ammo. The British were also short of both AP ammo and incendiary ammo for the .303 during the BoB. 
Next we have _which armament _for the Hurricane _after _the BoB. Eight .303sin the IIA? twelve .303s in the IIB or the four 20mm guns in the IIC? The 40mm guns were special purpose and were never intended for air to air fighting even against bombers. 
Now compare to _which P-40? _ The P-40, P-40B, P-40C/Tomahawk? or the P-40E?Warhawk and later? The long nose planes only carried two .50 cal guns and what with the synchronizers the rate of fire was miserable, lower than the 20mm guns in the Hurricane. 

So you are comparing 150-160rps from the eight gun Hurricane and 225-240 rps from the twelve gun Hurricane and 40 shells a second from the Huricane IIC to the 15-16 rps of .50 cal and the 75-80 rps of .30 cal/.303 of the long nose P-40s. 
I am sorry but I am not seeing much, if any advantage for the early P-40? The later ones got to 75-80rps of .50 cal _IF_ the carried all six guns and _IF _they fired at near 800rpm (a lot of the early installations didn't even after the gun was rated at that speed in ground tests) and _IF they didn't jam. _a BIG IF in early 1942. 
A P-40E with six .50s was carrying 470-480lbs worth of guns and 423lbs worth of ammo for about 18-19 seconds of firing time. 
A Hurricane IIC was carring 588lbs worth of guns and about 225lbs worth of ammo (90rpg) for 9 seconds of firing time. 
Weights do not include ammo boxes, gun heaters, charging systems or gun mounts. 

The explosive content of the 20mm ammo is certainly valid for fighter vs fighter combat. 




Spitfire hit by German 20mm shells. 
other side

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Old Wizard (May 26, 2017)




----------



## muskeg13 (May 27, 2017)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Glad you mentioned Pappy's name Drgon, I was just reading that his biography was written by no less an authority than General George Kenney. That alone tells you something about the importance of his contributions to the Pacific Theater air war. It's a miracle Gunn survived the first three months of the war! He was a legend in his own time.



I just finished reading Gen. Kenney's biography of Pappy Gunn. Easy read and very interesting. Gunn was quite a "character!" This was only a 0.99 cent download from the Amazon Kindle Store, and is well worth it. FYI: You don't have to read this on a Kindle. Amazon has a free Kindle-PC interface application that works great. There are lots of very interesting free or very cheap books that can be downloaded from Amazon Kindle.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 9, 2017)

An article at U.S. Army Air Force Resource Center - A Warbirds Resource Group Site, the Soviet pilots felt the "Soviet commanders considered the Kittyhawk to significantly outclass the Hurricane" and Commonwealth air forces reported "[t]he P-40s were considered superior to the Hurricane."

I really don't have a side here, except that I feel that the P-40, F4F, and P-39 are frequently given short shrift because they weren't a) German and b) operating with the Eighth Air Force over Germany.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2017)

Well everybody knows that just painting black crosses and swastikas on an aircraft adds 20-30mph in speed and hundreds of feet per minute in climb  
Not mention the guns shoot further and more accurately  

However the US always planned to replace the P-39 and P-40 with P-38s and P-47s as soon as increased production of the P-38 and P-47 allowed. The P-51 had no bearing on production/deployment plans made in 1941 and early 1942 and please remember that these plans were often being made a year or more in advance. Sometimes two years and sometimes plans crashed and burned, like Curtiss production of P-47s. 
US ordering of Allison P-51s was by the hundreds while orders for the P-39, P-40, P-38 and P-47 were by the thousands. It is not until the summer of 1942 that investigations start on using the Merlin in the P-51 and orders for the P-51 go to thousands per order in the fall of 1942 and spring of 1943. 
I would not put a lot of stock into some the Russian stories either. In some cases there are just too few reported incidents to make a valid judgment. Much like the Buffaloes lousy reputation being based on about a dozen planes at Midway on one mission with green pilots. 
I would note that some of the combats reported using Tomahawks in Russia are from Jan/Feb of 1942 or the Germans first winter in Russia and one might wonder just how well the German planes were maintained of the condition of the German pilots.

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


----------



## stona (Jul 9, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Not mention the guns shoot further and more accurately



Specially when mounted on the fuselage close to the centre line, or firing through the spinner. They were at least 15 times more effective, but only in combination with black crosses on the wings

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


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 9, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> Well everybody knows that just painting black crosses and swastikas on an aircraft adds 20-30mph in speed and hundreds of feet per minute in climb
> Not mention the guns shoot further and more accurately
> 
> However the US always planned to replace the P-39 and P-40 with P-38s and P-47s as soon as increased production of the P-38 and P-47 allowed. The P-51 had no bearing on production/deployment plans made in 1941 and early 1942 and please remember that these plans were often being made a year or more in advance. Sometimes two years and sometimes plans crashed and burned, like Curtiss production of P-47s.
> ...


On the other hand, this may also be when the Soviet Air Forces were still trying to achieve sufficient competence. Starting with an inferior manufacturing base and shooting people who looked the wrong way ("hmmm....I wanted that girl...I'll just report him for subversion...") couldn't have done much for readiness.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> On the other hand, this may also be when the Soviet Air Forces were still trying to achieve sufficient competence. Starting with an inferior manufacturing base and shooting people who looked the wrong way ("hmmm....I wanted that girl...I'll just report him for subversion...") couldn't have done much for readiness.



True but frozen guns and building wood fires under the engines of aircraft to warm them up enough to start not to mention what the pilots had for winter flying gear or cockpit heat ?

An Italian squadron operating in Russia lost several aircraft in one day when landing due to the landing gear oleos haven frozen/solidified in flight. Brought new meaning to "fixed" landing gear when trying to land.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

