Advanced French Fighters vs 1942/1943 contemporaries (4 Viewers)

[Steamed_Banana]

The little light tanks were already out of production and work on the Tetrarch light tank wound up taking up huge amount of resources for 100-177 actual tanks. The need for a 'bespoke' engine that was not used in anything else (except the Harry Hopkins) was a loss of engineer hours.
UK tank design/production was an absolute mess. With 6 different 2pdr armed tanks needing 5 different engines (and a slightly fewer number of transmissions) all needing development and testing and modification the little 6 ton light tanks were the least of the British problems. Build another 100-150 VIC with Besa guns and send them off to Abyssinia, Syria, Malasia and Borneo. Cost might have been 40-50 of the bigger tanks? A small, tiny drop in the bottom corner of the huge bucket that was the waste of the Covenanter program.

French tanks and armored cars were generally better than their British equivalent, if France had survived a bit longer maybe England could license-build some Somua S.35s and Panhard 178s

to replace say, Vickers VI and Cruiser Mk II or A13, and the Humbers. Keep the Matilda IIs though.

 

[Shortround6]

LeO 451s were carrying more ordinance than 1,100 lbs in Syria. I'll post some examples later.

I didn't say it didn't. What I am saying is that the range of 1600 miles is with a very light bomb load. It could, like many bombers, carry more bombs over shorter ranges but the max bomb load would be very short range indeed. With better engines I have little doubt the LeO 451 could carry both fuel and bombs.

B-23 was little more than a prototype, and was clearly inferior to the Leo 451.

Well, 38 planes are more than a prototype (unless you are Russian) but yes the B-23 was seen not up to date enough even while being built.
The NA-40 flew in Jan 1939 with P&W R-1830s but the Army didn't like it. It was repowered in Feb/March of 1939 with R-2600. It crashed in April 1940/
The first actual B-25 flew Aug 19th 1940. The US was not in shooting war and knew they had better aircraft the B-23 coming.
Wiki is wrong, the first B-25 in Aug 1940 had R-2600s that had 1700hp for take-off, the -9 engine was rated at 1350hp at 13,000ft at max continuous power. It had a two speed supercharger. Max power in high gear was 1450hp at 12,000ft.

I picked the B-25 to avoid arguments about Martin B-26. The Early B-25 was not flashy. It did a lot of things well. The French needed something like that, assuming they could build (or buy) engines.

Leo 451 had a 20mm cannon for defense, armor and self sealing fuel tanks, and made 300 mph with all that on board, in mid 1940.

The first B-25s went into action in the Pacific in April 1942, do you know of any earlier deployments?

There were no earlier deployments. The US didn't send out small groups of early aircraft to get shot up, mostly. The first 60-80 B-25s were more use as trainers to get the crews up to speed for the B-25Bs and Cs. Some of the earlier B-25s (some As) were used as anti-sub marine aircraft while the US built more maritime patrol aircraft.

France has 10 times the population and equivalently larger arms industry than Switzerland, not to mention they were already working on the 12Y/Z series in 1940 so I'm confident they could achieve the same results as the Swiss but sooner.

I have no such confidence. France had years to fix the 12Y, they didn't. The Russians had 7 years from 1933 to 1940 to try to fix the 12Y. They changed from 2 valves to 3 valves and increase the weight by about 22% and were having trouble making 1260hp and keeping durability. The Spanish team tried during/after WW II. The French tried after WW II and with better fuel available. They failed to reach the 1940 promises. Swiss actually had 4 engines. 1st try was just to get the 12Y-51 to do what they had been sold to begin with and that lead to the YS-2 engine, then they played with the YS-3 and then the YS-4. They went through several supercharger designs in addition to all the other changes.

The Ki-48 had a vastly superior operational history to the Blenheim and was still being used successfully on the front line against US and British Forces well into 1943. It's better in the sense that far fewer were shot down per mission, it was more accurate bomber, and it caused more harm to Allied targets than the Blenheim did to Axis targets.

This is going to take some proving. They built over twice as many Blenheim's and yes they built too many but unless we are comparing missions with similar quantities of escorts and similar quantities of interceptors and similar AA environments it is going to hard to judge. How do we judge accuracy?
If the Blenheims had gotten the number of escorts the Ki-48 got and had escorts that were as well trained what would the results have been?

It's objectively inaccurate to claim that the Ki-48 was a waste of resources, labor and / or crew.

For the Ki-48 I they were using a 8900lb empty weight aircraft and 4 men to deliver 300kg of bombs normal and 400kg max.
The early Ki-21 was 10,342lbs empty and used 5 men to deliver 750kg of bombs normal and 1000kg max (yes it was slow)
The M3G1 11 was 10,516lbs empty and used 5 men to deliver either 800kg torpedo or up to 800kg of bombs. (also slow)
Mitsubishi Ki-30 used a 4916lb empty airplane and two men to deliver 300kg of bombs normal or 400kg max load. It was slow but the extra speed and range of
the Ki-48 used a lot up a lot of metal and men for not much more speed and range. The extra men didn't offer up much better defensive fire power either.

 

[Shortround6]

French tanks and armored cars were generally better than their British equivalent, if France had survived a bit longer maybe England could license-build some Somua S.35s and Panhard 178s

No, the tanks weren't.
The Panhard was pretty good but in 1940 there was no point. By the time they got the drawings across the channel and started to actually build a Panhard the Diamler armored car would have been in full production and the Panhard was good, it would not do anything the Diamler could not do. While the 2pdr gun wasn't a great tank gun in 1940, it was a powerhouse in the armored car world.
The Somua 35 was just the least sucky French tank out of a host of sucky tanks. And most of the suckyness was due to basic design. Bad vision and one man turrets, which are hard to fix. Bigger turret may mean wider tank and things like that. Granted the British went backwards for a while with the Covenanter and Crusader but going even further backwards to the Somua might have been enough to make Britian give up on tanks
Decent gun and armor on the Somua does not make up for crap vision and poor rate of fire and worse rate of engagement (this also assumes you can fix the radio problems and actually install radios and radios that work.)
Germans were starting to fit the short 50mm gun into the MK IIIs in June/July of 1940 and the Somua's armor was not the protection it had been in May/June of 1940.
British had enough crap tanks of their own without trying to convert to the metric system to build the Somau to build another crap tank.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The French steadily improved the power output and reliability of the 12Y from 1932 through 1940. The original 12Ybr was rated for 650 hp at 2,200 rpm in 1932. The 12Y-45 was rated for 920 hp at 2,400 rpm in 1936, and the 12Y-50/51 for 1,100 hp in 1939. Weight did increase from 415-492 kg. But that was still a lot lighter than a V-1710-33 at 608 kg.

As for the Somua, you have to learn to stop comparing to ideals and stick to context and reality. The S.35 was objectively better than any of the existing British tanks in 1940, and for that matter through 1942 and probably 1943. It definitely needed a bigger turret, a better radio, an improved main hatch etc., and a much better gun.

Gun:

Somua S.35 47mm APX - Range 2,000m, muzzle velocity 855 m/s, shell weight 1.73 kg, ROF 15-20 r/m, penetration 106mm at 100m, 89mm at 500m, 72mm at 1,000m
British tanks 2 pounder - Range 1,500-1,800m, muzzle felicity 792 m/s, shell weight 1.08 kg, ROF 22 r/m penetration 53mm at 460m, 42mm at 1,000m
Panzer III 3.7 cm KwK 36 - Range 300m, muzzle velocity 762 m/s, shell weight 0.658 kg, ROF 13 r/m, penetration 40mm at 100m, 30mm at 500m
Panzer 38(t) 3.7 cm KwK 38(t) - Range 1,500m, muzzle velocity 762 m/s (AP) or 1,020 m/s (APCR), shell weight 0.85 kg, ROF 15-20 r/m, penetration (AP) 53 mm at 100m, 40mm at 500m
Panzer 38(t) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- penetration (APCR) 77mm at 100m, 47mm at 500m

Most importantly like the German and Czech tanks, the S.35 could not only engage tanks, it could also engage and destroy AT guns, infantry and artillery because it had HE shells. With almost 3 times the HE as the Pz III.

Armor:

S35 40-47mm (sloped)

Cruiser Mk III 6-14mm (flat)
Cruiser Mk IV 6-30mm (flat)
Matilda Mk 1 1-60mm (partly sloped) - machine gun for main armament
Matilda Mk II 20-77mm (flat)
Panzer Mk IIC 5-15mm (flat)
Panzer Mk IIIA 15mm (flat)
Panzer Mk IID 30mm (flat)

The S.35 proved itself at Hannut and Arras, the deployment and tactics were what ultimately cost them to be defeated. As a tank, it worked out quite well despite it's flaws, and overmatched the Pz IIs and IIIs. The Cruiser tanks never did. The Matilda II did pose a problem for the Germans, but was badly hampered by the baffling lack of AP ammunition and the top speed of 9 mph offroad. Compared to 20mph for the S.35

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Actually, France did have a rather strong heavy fighter/ground attack project in the works with the CAPRA R40:
View attachment 896066

View: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2219850264895329/posts/3711865475693793/

Sadly, the mockup got destroyed during the Battle of France, and the whole project died with the armistice.

Wow! i never heard of that one. Incredible!!

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The Lily had a much lower loss rate per mission than the Blenheim, particularly in China / Burma / India. That is very clear in Shores operational history. They were usually but not always flying with a heavy escort often with a small number of bombers, like under ten, escorted by 40-50 fighters. They carried a small bomb load (and often quite small bombs) but they were accurate and could dive-bomb to some extent, which seems to have helped them inflict losses from their raids. For example they usually destroyed Allied aircraft when they attacked Allied airfields. Maybe I'll start a thread on their operational history.

We can say what we want about AAA defenses of the Chinese being sub-par, but the British and American AAA by 1942-43 was pretty good, and yet the Ki-48s were still operating with relatively low loss rates.

One of the odd and interesting things about the relative success of the Ki-48 is the dismal failure of the larger, better armored, and much better armed Ki-49, in pretty much exactly the same Theaters (including CBI and New Guinea area).

Speaking of New Guinea, there is no way in hell that Blenheims could survive the operational environment over New Guinea in 1942-43.

 

[Shortround6]

As for the Somua, you have to learn to stop comparing to ideals and stick to context and reality. The S.35 was objectively better than any of the existing British tanks in 1940, and for that matter through 1942 and probably 1943. It definitely needed a bigger turret, a better radio, an improved main hatch etc., and a much better gun.

Somua S.35 47mm APX - Range 2,000m, muzzle velocity 855 m/s, shell weight 1.73 kg, ROF 15-20 r/m, penetration 106mm at 100m, 89mm at 500m, 72mm at 1,000m

You have given the gun performance for the 47mm APX anti-tank gun.
Performance for the 47mm SA 35 tank gun was Range 1200-1500m (?) muzzle velocity 700 m/s, shell weight 1.5 kg, ROF 15-20 r/m Under test, in action 3-5 r/m, penetration 39mm at 100m, 33mm at 500m, 26mm at 1,000m Sloped at 30 degrees. That was reality.

the top speed of 9 mph offroad. Compared to 20mph for the S.35

Except the S.35 had trouble with cross country work, like crossing obstacles or even getting stuck in roadside ditches. It was also top heavy and 2 reputedly toppled over in the fighting at Gembloux Gap. The off road performance of many tanks was often governed by the crewmen bouncing around inside. Expecting the S 25 to actually do 20mph cross country with it's primitive suspension is a bit much. Matilda suspension was also primitive but they were only trying go 1/2 as fast.

 

[Elan Vital]

The French were not interested in the British adopting French AFV designs other than assisting in Char B production and working on a joint future battle tank program, instead of the Infantry Tank Mark IV (A20) which was not mature enough to be quickly fielded and not competitive enough as a longer-term future tank.
The French knew that the S35 wouldn't be suitable in the long term, and the new Cruisers were already comparable in protection and firepower and superior outside of these parameters. The French actually were interested in the British cranking out as many Matilda IIs and Crusaders as possible as the former was competitive and the latter filled a very interesting niche.

tomo pauk Did you mention the S-P supercharger for radials because it better matched these engines, or because they needed a better S-C more than Merlin?

The "interesting" twin-engine bomber we could get is the Bloch 140 which was a derivative of the 162 with 2 GR-14R engines instead of 4 14Ns and a narrower fuselage owing to the deletion of the access tunnel going through the length of the bomber. That would normally give a bigger bomb bay and payload than most twin-engine bombers in use.

E.g, it could carry 4*500kg bombs in the bay (or 8*200kg or 12*100kg or 64*50kg), or 3000-3600kg over 1400-1450 km or 1500-1825 kg over 2400-2700 km (lower values are those given in the final spec sheet in the Bloch Aircrafts Part III book by Philippe RICCO, higher values are estimates given in late 1938).

Compare this with my previous post on LeO 451:
"You can carry one 100, 200 or 500kg bomb in each wing (internally) and either 32x10 or 10x50kg bombs or 5x200kg +1x100kg bomb or 6x100kg bombs in the fuselage so theoretically up to 2100kg (more since bombs actually weigh more), but in practice it was usually less than one ton and per Docavia's small spec note on the LeO 451, the range of 2300 km is for 500kg of bombs. Not sure if other range/payload figures are given or available. "

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Crusaders were frankly terrible. That's just a fact. Their armor was (as I've shown) a tiny fraction of the armor on the S.35, in fact the Crusader III armor was barely adequate to protect against a German light machine gun, and they had no HE shell for their guns. Nor did the Matilda. Considering that most British tanks in North Africa were destroyed by light AT guns I'd say that was a major issue. The combat history bears this out.

500kg is about the typical bomb load typically carried by Blenheims, Marylands, and Bostons in the North Africa campaign, and they weren't making anywhere near 2300 km range.

 

[Gilder]

Crusaders were frankly terrible. That's just a fact. Their armor was (as I've shown) a tiny fraction of the armor on the S.35, in fact the Crusader III armor was barely adequate to protect against a German light machine gun

Total tosh. The crusader armour was comparable to the S35, the 2pd was good compared to the S35 47mm SA35, the 6pd considerably more effective and the turret was a much better design. I suspect that you are mixing up a cruiser III to a Crusader III which is a very different animal.

, and they had no HE shell for their guns. Nor did the Matilda. Considering that most British tanks in North Africa were destroyed by light AT guns I'd say that was a major issue. The combat history bears this out.

Even more tosh. HE shells did exist for the Crusader tank but they were not issued in sufficient numbers and that I agree was totally stupid.

 

[ThomasP]

re

Is there a power curve for the V-1710-33 online by the way?

V-1710-33

and
V-1710-39

 

[Frog]

For the Germans the French 47 mm was still good enough as an anti-tank gun for the Atlantic Wall : Utah Beach after D-Day - Les Dunes (Saint-Martin-de-Varreville).

 

[tomo pauk]

tomo pauk Did you mention the S-P supercharger for radials because it better matched these engines, or because they needed a better S-C more than Merlin?

There were two problems with the S/Cs on the radials of the day. 1st was that everyone and his brother used the squished and convoluted intake elbows just before the impeller. Look here for Bristol's engine of the day. 2nd was that people were using straight-bladed impellers (everyone bar Wright?). Some people used too small the impellers, like the Americans on their big radials.
Add the two (or three) together, and the altitude performance (ie. above 15000 ft) dropped off sharply on the radials.

I've suggested that the S/C from the G&R 14R 4/5 is used on the British radials, too - it is already desinged and tested for a 14-cyl radial, and it solved the 1st and 2nd issue. The swirl throttle by S-P duo, if it can be applied, solves the engine power decrease under the rated altitude(s) because the throttles used were inefficient.
Both Bristol and BMW gotten extra 180-200 HP at 5.5-6 km with better superchargers, but we're already well into 1944 when that happened. Exhaust thrust was also increased. For the Fw 190 for example, that meant the speed increase of ~30 km/h at 8km (A-8 vs. A-9).

Merlin was already with a good S/C, and by mid-1940 it was even better, as used on the Merlin XX.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Total tosh. The crusader armour was comparable to the S35, the 2pd was good compared to the S35 47mm SA35, the 6pd considerably more effective and the turret was a much better design. I suspect that you are mixing up a cruiser III to a Crusader III which is a very different animal.\

Yes I meant Cruiser III, we are talking about 1940 though the Crusader

Even more tosh. HE shells did exist for the Crusader tank but they were not issued in sufficient numbers and that I agree was totally stupid.

Whether they theoretically existed is rather moot, they had no HE shells for their guns in the tank, is the issue. And that didn't get alleviated for years. The HE for the 2 pounder wasn't much to write home about either but it would have been better than nothing.

Cruiser tanks in general also had poor reliability and bad design of tracks etc. I don't know if they were "top heavy" but they routinely broke down and got stuck etc.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

re

V-1710-33
View attachment 896231
and
V-1710-39
View attachment 896232

And I note here once again that the military rating for the V-1710-33 is at a higher altitude (13,200') than the -39 (12,000'), in both cases at 3,000 rpm, and in both cases engine power falls of quickly after that altitude in full throttle. To me that says there is an engine issue here as well as airframe weight.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

You have given the gun performance for the 47mm APX anti-tank gun.
Performance for the 47mm SA 35 tank gun was Range 1200-1500m (?) muzzle velocity 700 m/s, shell weight 1.5 kg, ROF 15-20 r/m Under test, in action 3-5 r/m, penetration 39mm at 100m, 33mm at 500m, 26mm at 1,000m Sloped at 30 degrees. That was reality.

You are right, that's what I get for reading Wikipedia. I don't have a lot of sources yet for early tanks.

But I would note, even with the lesser gun, it's still much better than the Cruisers or the Pz III. The Czech tank is a closer rival but the Germans weren't fielding a lot of the 38(t) by the time of the Battle of France (they did have a fair number of 35(t) but those were not as good (though still better than the British tanks or the early Pz III in some respects).

Except the S.35 had trouble with cross country work, like crossing obstacles or even getting stuck in roadside ditches. It was also top heavy and 2 reputedly toppled over in the fighting at Gembloux Gap. The off road performance of many tanks was often governed by the crewmen bouncing around inside. Expecting the S 25 to actually do 20mph cross country with it's primitive suspension is a bit much. Matilda suspension was also primitive but they were only trying go 1/2 as fast.

Sure. The thing is, Cruiser tanks were routinely getting stuck and breaking down without even going near ditches. Matildas took all day to even get to the ditch. And then got taken out by an AT gun which was pushed slowly into position by a team of horses and the gun crew...

Tank design, like military aircraft design, is a series of compromises and tradeoffs, with nobody knowing which gambles will work out and which ones won't until they go into combat. In the early days, the compromises were harsh because the technology and industrial levels were still somewhat sub-par. There was no perfect tank any more than there was a perfect fighter or bomber in 1940.

• The British and Germans had the larger / wider turrets, which turned out to be better.
• The French had a better gun and much better armor, which turned out to be better. The British had good armor on their "Infantry Tanks" but these were crippled by other faults.
• The Germans and French had HE ammo for their guns, which turned out to be rather critical.
• The British went for high speed (Cruisers) or very low speed (for their bafflingly specced "Infantry Tanks" which lacked any HE capability), but the Infantry tanks were too slow and the Cruiser tanks were unreliable. The Germans and French went for a medium speed, which turned out to be better.

Overall, the British tank designs were not good, even though they got some things right. This why they relied heavily on US-made tanks which were also not perfect but were considerably better, until the very end of the war when they finally came up with the perfect tank of the Cold War era, the outstanding Centurian.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

The French were not interested in the British adopting French AFV designs other than assisting in Char B production and working on a joint future battle tank program, instead of the Infantry Tank Mark IV (A20) which was not mature enough to be quickly fielded and not competitive enough as a longer-term future tank.

I never said the French were interested in or wanted this, I'm just pointing out that the French tank and AC designs were better (though I agree with SR6 that the Daimler when it arrived was as good as the Panhard 178 in most respects, except for the weirdness of the 2 pounder gun and no HE ammunition)

The French knew that the S35 wouldn't be suitable in the long term, and the new Cruisers were already comparable in protection and firepower and superior outside of these parameters.

The S35 was indeed about to be replaced as I already noted. The Cruisers of 1940 were not comparable in armor and suffered a major problem with their gun, which was good enough for AT by the standards of the day, but sadly lacking in capability to deal with enemy AT guns, field guns, machine guns, structures, or infantry.

The French actually were interested in the British cranking out as many Matilda IIs and Crusaders as possible as the former was competitive and the latter filled a very interesting niche.

Everyone liked the Matilda II for the moment, and the French did like the overall strategic concept of the Crusader, if not the actual tank design.

Which is why they designed their own version which on paper at least, looks a lot better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX_40_cruiser_tank

Much better armor (30-60 mm, all cast), much better gun, better range, wider than the S35 (so less top heavy), in most respects a marked improvement over the British Cruisers. And a two-man turret which was an improvement over the S.35 with it's deficient one-man turret.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Thanl you for the effort to find and post the data.

As before, term 'critical altitude' is not giving the data we need. Would we rather have the Merlin III with critical altitude of 16250 ft (on 87 oct fuel), or the same engine with the rated altitude at 9000 ft (100 oct fuel)?
What mattered was what kind of power at desired altitude. Both -39 and -33 (and the similar engines, with the S/C drive of 8.8:1) will do the same power above ~14500 ft (without the ram effect). The -33 will do a bit better under that altitude because it was allowed for a somewhat greater boost.

I am interested in how you explain the charts Thomas posted. Maybe I'm still missing something.

The reason why the P-40E was such a dog was due to it porking out, with all of the HMGs & their ammo, protection, structural reinforcements etc, while the engine power above 10000 ft was still firmly in the 1939 land when compared with what the European best had. See the Spitfire II as a bit less problematic example, that despite the better engine it was not as zippy as the Mk.1. Or, see how the Spitfire V would've fared if we put the Merlin III in the nose, with as high-octane fuel as available.

I really don't think the P-40 was ever considered a dog by it's own pilots or those of the German, Italian, or Japanese air forces that faced it. It had a limited altitude performance. Within it's altitude limit, it was quite deadly, it was one of the most agile and highest scoring fighter aircraft of the war, especially prior to 1944 (remaining effective in the fighter role far longer than the Hurricane, for example). It is also notable that it's a lot easier and quicker to get down to 12,000' than it is to climb to 30,000'. The P-40 had among the worlds best roll rate and dive speed which enabled evading attack at higher altitudes and getting to the altitude where it had advantage.

Limited altitude performance was not uncommon for aircraft of the era, many types, including many of the most ubiquitous fighters of the day, Na-73 / P-51 through A, P-39, A6M2, Ki-43-I, Hurricane I, Spitfire I through V, Macchi 200 and Fiat G.50, D.520 and MS 406 etc.. It was also a comparatively heavy aircraft, but that was not unique by any means either, especially for US types.

Spitfire V (let alone I or II) was not necessarily better in combat than a later mark P-40, at least in the Tropical theaters.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Hold on a minute here.

My source is a very old book in English and could well be wrong. Somewhere in this thread I believe there are some French sources.
However, Wiki is total BS for some things.
My old book for the LeO 451 says 1430miles with an 1100lb bomb load. Doesn't say what ferry range is. It does give bomb loads with 220 imp gal. 398 Imp gal, 530 imp gal and 712 Imp gals ( the 1100lb load)
Yes it was possible to put two 1100lb bombs and five 441lb bombs in the LeO 451 but that was with the 220 imp gal fuel load, You aren't going very far with that.
Most B-25s are credited with 1350-1500 mile ranges with a 3000-3200lb bomb load.
So lets compare apples to apples.

True but again lets compare like to like.
Early B-25s (the first 40) had crap for guns and no armor and no protected tanks. But they were fast, 322mph?
The next 40 (B-25As) got armor, four of the wing tanks were protected (at the cost of 222 gal of fuel) and still had crap for guns, It was possible to fit a 412 gal tank in the bomb bay which came in handy a bit later.
the next 120 were the B-25B, 1st delivery was in Aug 1941 and about 50 of these were completed before Dec 7th and the rest after, however, back in Oct 1940 NA had gotten a contract for 863 B-25Cs, in Feb 1941 they got a contract for 1200 B-25Ds (basically Cs built at the new Kansas City factory. The First C flew on 9 Nov 1941 and the first D flew in Dec, first delivery's were about 2 months later.

I don't think this is relevant, because the Leo 451 was already flying in combat in 1940 and 1941, whereas the B-25C or D, we agree, was not in combat until mid 1942. I think, if the French still had independence by that point, they would have upgraded the 451 and / or developed other bomber types.

The B-25Bs were the first with the top and bottom turrets which started to slowing down. The C & Ds got extra fuel tanks in the wings to bring wing tankage up to 974 US gallons in protected tanks. If you have a B-25C that can only do 270mph it needs a tune up and fresh plugs.


Covered above.

Hold on a minute here.
B-18s started to be delivered in 1937 (anybody want to see what the French were getting into service in 1937?_
Last one was completed in 1939, The B-18A with the shark nose, the last 38 (?) were completed to an amended contract as...............................

B-18s were still serving in the 2nd, 5th, 7th, 19th, 21st, 28th, 36th, 38th bombardment groups, and some of them were in 8 more bomber groups in 1940. There were B-18s in the Philippines and Hawaii when these bases were attacked in Dec 1941. They were still flying in Alaska during the Aleutian campaign in 1942, though mainly for ASW by that point.

B-23
View attachment 896100
First flight July 27th 1939, the last of the 38 planes were delivered in sept 1940. All with R-2600 engines (granted the A model and not the B models used in the B-25s)
top speed was 282mph, guns sucked but the bomb bay would hold 4000lbs of bombs (Wiki lies). Range with 4000lb bomb load is listed as 1400 miles but (?). No armor and no protection. Requirement for the B-25 and B-26 had been issued 6 months before the prototype B-23 flew which explains the lack of further production orders.

Yeah I looked at the B-23, it certainly looks cooler but it clearly wasn't really a viable combat capable design.

 

[tomo pauk]

I am interested in how you explain the charts Thomas posted. Maybe I'm still missing something.

I don't think that there is anything to be explained there. The charts posted by him are in agreement with the data posted at Peril's site and other creditable websites, as well as in the book 'Vee's for victory'. A few HP down or up at a few feet up or down is nothing to loose sleep about.

I really don't think the P-40 was ever considered a dog by it's own pilots or those of the German, Italian, or Japanese air forces that faced it. It had a limited altitude performance. Within it's altitude limit, it was quite deadly, it was one of the most agile and highest scoring fighter aircraft of the war, especially prior to 1944 (remaining effective in the fighter role far longer than the Hurricane, for example). It is also notable that it's a lot easier and quicker to get down to 12,000' than it is to climb to 30,000'. The P-40 had among the worlds best roll rate and dive speed which enabled evading attack at higher altitudes and getting to the altitude where it had advantage.

A fighter that has a limited altitude performance is a worse fighter than another fighter that has no such problems, or these problems are less acute. Accolade of being "a more effective fighter for the longer time than the Hurricane" is a damning with a faint praise.

Limited altitude performance was not uncommon for aircraft of the era, many types, including many of the most ubiquitous fighters of the day, Na-73 / P-51 through A, P-39, A6M2, Ki-43-I, Hurricane I, Spitfire I through V, Macchi 200 and Fiat G.50, D.520 and MS 406 etc.. It was also a comparatively heavy aircraft, but that was not unique by any means either, especially for US types.

P-40 was a fighter in the late 1940 (with weak firepower and no protection), and then in 1941-43. Comparison should've been made vs. the types entering the service in the same time. Also, for something to be really of note, comparison should include the best competition available, too.

Once with full firepower and protection, P-40 was indeed too heavy & draggy for the feeble horsepower available.
The US types of note were all with far better engines; even with similar engines, the P-39 and P-51 were faster than the P-40.

Spitfire V (let alone I or II) was not necessarily better in combat than a later mark P-40, at least in the Tropical theaters.

As above - timing is crucial.
French and British will need something amazing for the more temperate climate, if not cold climate, with vast majority of air combat happening above NW Europe.