Bf-109 vs P-40

P-40 vs Bf 109

  • Total voters
    165

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

While I agree with most of what you are saying, there are two other, strong factors that must be taken into consideration ; the pilot and the enviornment in which they fly. I agree that any plane would not get to the status of frontline fighter without some qualities, the pilot and area of operation are very important. Taking your points, the Buffalo should have been the one with the Tiger's mouth in Burma instead of P-40s along with any other area they operated but there were some problems with it that made them somewhat inferior to enemy aircraft. That and the trails and tribulations on the homefront production facilities I'm sure added to the luster.

and tigercub, check some ops with P-40s and Bf 109s in North Africa. At times, they held their own.
 

I think one of the reason why Allied planes performed better during the war is that the People got better

They gained experience, and confidence and hands-on know-how from the Erk filling gun-belts, to the Wing-co deciding how to deploy his assets en masse.

As well as Kit (such as Radios, Spark-plugs, Fuel numerous small parts) - Logistics, Command Control, Supply Tactics - all of these improved from 1939 to 45.

The RAF even improved its efficiency During the BoB - which is partly why we ground the Germans to a halt.

NB: So, it may have been the Buffalo's Bad Luck to be around at the Start - and to have been deployed without the benefit of experience.

Poor old 'Beefalo'


Matthew
 
Last edited:
Njaco said:
While I agree with most of what you are saying, there are two other, strong factors that must be taken into consideration ; the pilot and the environment in which they fly.
Click to expand...

Indeed, sir. Let us not forget that the much maligned F4F Wildcat is the aircraft that won the decisive battle of the Pacific, at Midway- and this, despite it's great weaknesses.

What you say about the Buffalo possibly having the Tigers mouth in China is true- when you look at the stats, the Buffalo was probably the best early-war fighter the Americans had. It had comparable manuverability to the P-40, but superior power/weight ratio. In fact, it was the only fighter in the entire US arsenal at the time that DID have a decent power to weight ratio, or anything approximating a good climb rate. And, it had superior firepower- four .50s compared to the P-40s two .50s and four .30-06s. Durability is a wash; the P-40 was structurally superior, but the Buffalo had a radial engine.

And, in the end, none of this could forgive the Brewster corporations seemingly endless delays, problems, and production line hiccups, which had more to do with the fighters retirement then any other factor.

EDIT: Of course, I am obliged to point out that raw performance stats never tell the entire story of an aircraft. The Brewster was a delightfully manuverable plane to fly, by most accounts, but the P-40 was apparently more stable. Clive Cadwell described it as having "almost no vice," which I cannot say I've heard for the Brewster. I read (somewhere) that the Brewster was quite susceptible to torque, which seems to be a common characteristic of lighter-weight, short radial-engined ships. Something as simple as that can mean the difference between holding a tight turn, or having your ship stall out and auger in.
 
Last edited:
Plus the P-40 can outdive and outrun the Buffalo. The P-40 was a superior aircraft to the Brewster using WWII tactics of building energy and diving into enemy formations past escorts and then climbing. In a dogfight with a Brewster if both pilots were equal the Warhawk would have a slight advantage.
 
 
There is alot of truth in that
In Hurricane and Spitfire Pilots at War - Terence Kelly he mentions the arrival in-theatre of precious Spitfire Mk IXs and how they were squandered by clueless, incompetent military leadership

...this was insufficient for Wingate who was so worried about possible Japanese interference, that he persuaded the RAF to send in a flight of Spitfire IXs. The result was unmitigated disaster. The Spitfires took possession of Wingate's strip which was not served by radar and the Japanese, making a big effort, promptly attacked it, catching the Spitfires as they were about to take off and wiping them all out. The lesson of Palembang, that you do not operate single squadrons from single runways without being sure of adequate advance warning of enemy attack, had not been learned.

and yet there in the same theatre, Chennault was operating P-40s, aircraft substantially inferior to the Spitfire IX, successfully against the Japanese; equipment is only as good as its deployment and deployment is only as good as the overall ability of command.

I would temper what you say next with some caution

'Take the BoB - if you had a force of young half-trained pilots, which would you rather put them in, the Bf109 or the Hurricane?'

it's a very academic point, the Luftwaffe didn't have a force of half-trained young pilots, they had a corps of very experienced pilots flying a very lethal fighter and in all honesty, I'd put them in the Bf109E as it rather soundly outclassed the Hurricane as a fighter.
 
Last edited:

hum, the F2A2 was used for the first truly high speed dive testing as it could do terminal velosity dives (like the F4A3) and did dive as fast as 560 mph while the P-40 was limited to 480 max dive speed.
 
If a Brewster can outrun a Warhawk in a shallow dive then that would be a plus for the Buffalo. I cannot believe that is the case though. Don't get me wrong, I am aware of the capabilities of the Brewster, especially in the aggressive hands of the Finns. Chennault had heard some mumblings among the AVG, concerning the P-40 and the Brewster, especially among the former Navy pilots who thought the Brewster might be better then the Warhawk, so he set up a contest. The RAF picked their best pilot who was fresh from the BoB, Brandt was his name; and Chennault chose Erick Schilling. The contest was to last for three engagements and the P-40 won the first two so there wasn't a third.

Erick Schilling wrote:
Brandt later stated that he wished that he could trade the Brewster for the P-40, but the tactics learned from the Germans in the BoB made them very successful with the Buffalo in CBI. It all comes down to tactical employment of the aircraft.
 

Absolutely fascinating! I had no idea that there was a fly-off between a P-40 and a Buffalo. Though, it sounds like the American pilot simply cut into his turn with a standard high-speed yo-yo, a rather basic maneuver. If I had to guess, I'd say that the British pilot didn't know about that maneuver because he was used to Spitfires, and Spitfires vs. Bf-109s is a situation where a flat hard left-hand turn works just as good as it did in 1915.

Also, from this anecdote it'd seem that the American flew the P-40 regularly, whereas the Brit did not fly the Brewster regularly (being fresh from the BoB, after all.) The fact that they went around in several circles before the P-40 caught up via the high-speed yoyo seems to indicate that the Brewster was indeed close to the P-40 in terms of horizontal manuverability.


I agree that the P-40s speed advantage was significant, but not because it made it better at boom and zoom tactics.

The beauty of Boom and Zoom is that pretty much any aircraft can do it- the only pre-requisites are the ability to fall like a rock and to have sufficient firepower to exploit the brief shot oppertunity. Both the P-40 and the Buffalo had this, with the Buffalo having superior firepower in the early years. Speaking in the context of Allies vs. Japan, either the Buffalo or the P-40 would have been just fine at that- the Buffalo arguably better, since it had better firepower with longer effective range (no 30 cals,) and the P-40 was noted for being unstable at terminal velocity dives. Vs. Zeros in a more even engagement, the P-40 is about the same speed as a Zero, if not a little faster, which makes extending away a lot easier then in the slow Buffalo, which would probably have to make a very long dive from high alt into clouds to simply escape. On the other hand, the Buffalo had good power/weight (slightly superior to the A6M2, in fact!) and a decent climb rate, which would let the pilot go after climbing zeros that a P-40 driver couldn't. The Buff couldn't stay with the Zero forever, but it could certainly hang on it's tail longer then the P-40 could, long enough for a shot against what is basically a perfect target; a Zero hanging motionless on it's prop.

I know that we could do this kind of comparision until the cows come home, but it is fun, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
The much maligned Buffalo got a bad reputation because in it's final production versions for the USN, it was too heavy, thus had poor performance, had weak landing gear and could not be fitted with satisfactory self sealing tanks. Quote from Capt. Philip White, USMC, VMF-221, Midway. "It is my belief that any commander who orders pilots out for combat in an F2A3 should consider the pilot lost before leaving the ground." Marion Carl was fortunate he did not get stuck with a Buffalo at Midway but got to fly a Wildcat. Don't know if this is a good comparison but on Dec. 25, 1941, 18 RAF Buffaloes with 15 AVG Tomahawks encounter 80 Jap bombers and 28 fighters over Rangoon. The Buffalos are credited with 7 E/A kills and the Tomahawks, 25. Several Buffaloes are shot down and no AVG AC. The problem with comparing Buffaloes is that the Finnish Model 239s were a different animal than the F2A3, weighing considerably less, the 4 gun fighter Finnish model with 110 gallons of fuel having a gross weight of 5276.1 pounds versus the F2A3 with same amount of fuel weighing 6321 pounds. Huge difference.
 

OK, I accept what you say from one angle - but think about this:

We (in the UK) DID have a force of half-trained pilots and so the Hurricane was probably an easier plane for them to at least Take Off Land.

I know it is an Old Chestnut, but the Bf109E did always suffer from a Narrow Undercarriage. Read this from ME 109 E flight test report

" Hauptmann Gunther Schack, 174 victories;

'In March 1941, as a Gefreiter, I joined Jagdgeschwader Molders, JG 51, stationed at St. Over, France. By then I had only taken off with the 109 straight into wind, and never from a concrete runway.

On April 4th, during a cross-wind take-off on the concrete runway, the 109 swung so much to the left that I feared it would crash into some other machines parked along the edge of the field. I closed the throttle and my first crash began.

The machine swung left even more, the left undercarriage leg broke, and the 109 dropped on its left wing. This happened to me twice - the second time on April 10th - and my future as a fighter pilot seemed sealed.... "

[See Also]

" Generalleutnant Werner Funck, Inspector of Fighters, 1939;

'The 109 had a big drawback, which I didn't like from the start. It was that rackety - I always said rackety - undercarriage; that negative, against-the-rules-of-statics undercarriage that allowed the machine to swing away.' "
 
Last edited:
A Spitfire's track is not much different from a -109. One of members actually measured this.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
A Spitfire's track is not much different from a -109. One of members actually measured this.
Click to expand...

Note : You may notice I was comparing the Hurricane with the 109.


- But, yes, the Spit did have a narrow cart like the 109 for sure.


However, I understand that the Spits cart was


a. Much more straight up and down, not 'splayed' like the 109s

b. Stronger in all points.

c. Attached to the Main Spar - not tacked on to the Engine Mounting as per the 109
 

NOTE: I noticed the article posted was about the -109 and the difficulty with the landing gear and it was a known fact the Hurricane was an easier flying aircraft than both the Spit and 109.

HOWEVER

ALL tailwheel configured aircraft have the potential to get even the most experienced pilots in trouble if they aren't continually flown or if a pilot allows him or her self to exceed design or personal crosswind limitations.
 
Last edited:
Hello
while as Flyboyj wrote all taildraggers have the tendency to swing in cross wind situation some taildraggers were more difficult to handle than others.

From Kurfrst - Vergleichsfliegen Bf 109 E, Bf 110 C, Spitfire, Hurricane und Curtiss., Mölders' comment on Hurricane and Spitfire: "…Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land…"

As Cromwell wrote, Bf 109's landing gear was splayed which produced its own problems but also allowed a reasonable track width while being fuselage mounted which allowed easy moving of the plane even if wings were removed and maybe allowed a slightly lighter wing structure.
IIRC Bf 109 had its centre of mass farther behind its main wheels than Spitfire, so its swing was more difficult to control but on the other hand one could use its brakes more harshly because it was less likely to nose over.

Juha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
_PabloSniper_
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Yak3 vs Spitfire IX?
Replies
10
Views
4K
bravenest0
  • Poll
PZL P11 vs Bf 110
Replies
2
Views
2K
parsifal
Menu
Log in
Register