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.
Hello VG-33
No problem, I noticed the error when I looked the Russian part of Your message, thanks again for the very interesting info in it!
And thanks for the link, I'm not going to read the main text, but the specifications part of the page I might be able to translate and compare it to US info I have.

Thanks again
Juha
 
The soviet opinion:

Боевой опыт заставил фирму Кертисс срочно искать пути модернизации самолета. К тому времени стало ясно, что Уорхок уступает Мессершмитту по всем параметрам, кроме времени выполнения виража у земли 18 с против 22-23 с у Ме-109G.

By this time, it became obvious that Warhawk was overclassed by Messerschmitt in all aspects, exept on time of turn at sea level: 18s against 22-23 for a Me-109G.

V. Rigmant, P-40, MK 1977. (Rigmant is a famous Tupolev KB engeneer, charged with Saukke of the "Bear" program.)

Regards
 
Last edited:
Dont get me wrong in saying that the bf 109 wasn't the superior aircraft but there were many big factors that to some extend made the bf 109 inferior.

First off, its true that in almost every situation the bf 109 could outclimb, out run, and out turn the P-40. But the P-40 was actually impressively rugged and had the 6x.50cals (which can reck a bf 109) and quite the dive.

I will agree in saying that the P-40 was no fighter pilot's dream but at high speeds it actually handled pretty well and didn't suffer from stiffness like the Bf 109.
That with a acceptable landing gear, good amount of ammunition and with the Allies having more than enough numbers to push back the Germans, I would say it wasn't too bad to be a P-40 pilot.
 
The reality was that they were replaced wherever possible when they had to face the Bf 109. Be that Western or Eastern front. That speaks volumes.
 
True, but that still doesn't prove that my point is wrong. All im saying is that the Messerschmitt didn't completely dominate over the P-40. In some cases i would have actually chosen the p-40E or F over the bf 109F
 
Yes, but what impact would a cannon have had on the P-40? Because we are talking about 6x50 cal versus a cannon. Also you haven't exactly mentioned which Mark of Bf-109 you are pitting up against which P-40 Warhawk. It would be like pitting an Apache which was the P-51's first incarnation against a Bf-109 of any mark and expecting it to survive well. It would take a miracle for the P-40 to survive. The P-40 was mainly used I thought as a bomber buster. Fighter when necessary but very reluctantly...
 
There is various data to suggest that the P-40 was not as markedly inferior to the 109 as previously supposed.
The 109s main advantage would be climb and high altitude performance.
There is also some information that Luftwaffe kill claims of P-40 was highly exaggerated.
In looking at P-40 pilot kill claims we also see that P-40s often scored quite frequently against the 109.
A side by side comparison is probably more revealing than the stats, because combat usually takes place where either plane is in a favorable position.
For example, its a no brainer to say the P-40 was out performed at 25,000ft, but statistically those combats appear to have been very rare.
 

great answer. if you dig deeper yet, no matter what enemy aircraft the P-40 met, it always came out with the better record. ie: kil ratio. the russians used the P-40 on the eastern front with great sucsess. the MTO was also a great sucsess for the P-40. overall had a much better record over its nemisis the Bf 109F/G. in the Pacific it proved the Jap planes can be defeated, with great sucsess. even in a dogfight. KI-27/ Oscars/ Zeros all fell to her guns. in the early part of the war in western europe, to much aaa and flak guns. not to many planes would survive flying below 15000ft.

anyways I didn't vote. becouse there was no "equal" option. but in my opinion, the P-40 had a slight edge over the Bf 109.

~ Greg M.
 
I doubt seriously if the P40 came out on the long end against the A6M. The major handicap of the P40 was it's slow climb. It was heavy and underpowered. Please don't quote stuff about the AVG because the AVG probably never faced a Zero. At best, the P40 was a barely adequate fighter early in WW2.
 
renrich said:
I doubt seriously if the P40 came out on the long end against the A6M.
Click to expand...
you bet the came out on top of the AM6

renrich said:
Please don't quote stuff about the AVG because the AVG probably never faced a Zero. At best, the P40 was a barely adequate fighter early in WW2.
Click to expand...

you'd be right. but they did face the Oscar and handed them there asses.. how was the oscar compared to
the A6M???
 
The problem with the P-40 vs 109 match up is that while the P-40 might be able to hold it's own it is only at a certain altitude band, low. At medium altitude things get worse for the P-40 and at 20,000ft and above the P-40 is nearly useless against a 109.
If you can arrange combat so that ALL the fighting is done at low altitude then the P-40 looks pretty good. If you can't arrange that and were depending on the P-40 as the only fighter in the area to use against 109s then you are in trouble.

P-40s did OK in North Africa but had either Spitfires or P-38s flying top cover for them.
 
My understanding was that the P-40 did Ok against the Zero as long as it didn't try to turn with it in a dog fight. By making fast passes and disengaging, then reengaging with another fast pass it was able to hold it's own or maybe do a little better. Its armor plate also helped compared to how easily the Zero burned.
 
P-40K-5 said:
how was the oscar compared to
the A6M???
Click to expand...

If flown by the right pilot and within its element it could be just as dangerous. It was actually more maneuverable than the Zero and was able to out excelerate almost any fighter it came against when attempted to dogfight with it at lower airspeeds.
 
When comparing the A6M to the Spitfire and P-40, it would appear the P-40 had advantages in speed, particularly in dive. This allowed it to engage or disengage at will, where although the Spitfire was a better low speed turner, it still could not out turn an A6m. The Spitfire was more beneficial in the vertical having superior climb as well as high altitude performance making a better interceptor.
It was this lack of speed that made the P-40 favorable to the Spitfire however a Spitfire was less likely to be on the bottom end of a bounce because of its superior climb and altitude performance.

Given that the 109 was also a bit faster than the P-40 it also had the option to disengage or engage at will, although it could be argued that at given altitudes the difference in level speed was so marginal that it could be compensated by a shallow dive.
The reality was that usually the 109 had a height advantage to bounce from, but P-40 pilots repeatedly mention how easy it was to avoid a bounce in the horizontal so long as they saw the attacker first.
 
Last edited:
P-40 in Soviets hands (or Africa for that matter) with positive K/D ratio against Bf 109s? I'd like to see a source for that.

And I have never, ever heard of any pilot favouring the P-40 over the Spitfire.

As to "kills scored against the Bf 109": So did the I-16, I-153, Hurricane... all pplanes which were in the bigger picture still overall inferior to the Bf 109 as a fighter.
 
P-40K-5 said:
you bet the came out on top of the AM6



you'd be right. but they did face the Oscar and handed them there asses.. how was the oscar compared to
the A6M???
Click to expand...

Both Japanese fighters were lightly built and fragile compared to the P-40, but more maneuverable. In direct comparison, the Oscar was even more agile than the Zero, but a bit slower, shorter ranged (half the range of the Zero) and more lightly armed. Early Oscars were armed with just two machine guns (2 x 7.7-mm., 1 x 7.7-mm. and 1 x 12.7-mm., or 2 x 12.7-mm.), while Zeros were armed with two machine guns plus two 20-mm. cannon.
 
And I have never, ever heard of any pilot favouring the P-40 over the Spitfire.
Click to expand...

They are two fighters of different qualities and only the early P-40Bs were said to be comparable to Spitfires. The P-40E was much heavier and made the Spitfire a much more favorable fighter overall.
I still found it surprising to know that the P-40 was the faster of the two up to about 15,000ft.
The P-40 was put to better use because of its tougher structure, namely the landing gear, which allowed it to land and take off from less than suitable airfields where the Spitfire might require a more pristine surfaces.
The P-40 also had more favorable dive characteristics aside from also being faster, but if you think from a dive bomber roll, the P-40 was better suited for that roll.
The 109 was said to be more stable than either fighter in the dive, maybe even too stable given that all three axis points were said to stiffen in the dive.
Despite this, generally the 109 went where it was pointed with less frequent changes in trim which would also be a more desirable trait, however changing direction to follow a maneuvering fighter was said to be a problem at high speed.
 

Not during the SRA fighting and not initially over New Guniea. AVG did outscore against the 64th Sentai flying Ki-43, but not by a huge margin. The tactics used had much to do with it, particularily the ambush tactics employed. On the same token, the Ki-27 initially held it's own against the P-40 but i doubt anyone will consider the former to be a technical match for the latter.
 
It is all well and good to say that the P40 kicked whatever against Japanese fighters but it is my impression, in reading Shore's books, that the P40 was not that successful against Japanese Army fighters which it was mainly confronted with in the southwest Pacific and in the CBI. The P40 was roughly contemporaneous with the F4F and the F4F when well flown was about equal to the A6M except for climb and range. I don't have the complete figures for the P40, in the Pacific, as I do for the F4F but the F4F had more than 1400 kills in the Pacific whereas the P40 had 661. The F4F was a better climber than the P40 and was better at the higher altitudes. My impression is that the P40 was a decent fighter at lower altitudes against both the Zeke and the BF109 but at higher altitudes was at a disadvantage against both. Of course good tactics could make up for some of the poor characteristics of the P40 although kills are not usually made by diving away from the fight.
 
Pulling from Shores, my estimates ran as follows for the CBI/SRA

vs. A6M - 4.1:1 in favor of A6M
vs. Ki-43 - 2.25:1 in favor of P40 (2:1 Danial Ford's book)
vs. Ki-27 - 1.6:1 in favor of P40 (2.4:1 Daniel Ford's book....(he covers a longer period than Shores so adds several kills at the tail end of the campaign. My impression too was that he tended to award claim disputes between the RAF and AVG to the AVG so their numbers went up while RAF confirmed kills went down))

The bulk of the CBI fighting between the JAAF and the AVG/RAF was against Ki-27. (non readers of the Shores and Ford may often be suprised by this factoid) A fun fact for the stat crowd is that by the end of Shore's first volume (covering phase one of the Burma fighting), the lowly Nate had given nearly as good as it got vs. the AVG in terms of losses (1.2:1 in favor of P40)
AVG and No.67 did well to be competetive during this dark time but the stories of wholesale slaughter of hapless japanese airmen are just that.....stories.

Gamble's recent book on Rabaul gave some good info on No.75 RAAF squadron's performance and made the purchase worth it for that alone. There's some wiggle room but the optimal estimate is a 3:1 ratio in favor of the A6M whilst a 2 month exchange May/June with P-39/400 was 2.5:1 in favor of the A6M
 
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
29
Views
1K
Snautzer01
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
5K
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