Bf-109 vs P-40

Great post guys - the comments about the P-40 "handing the Japanese their asses" is based on folklore and left over propaganda. No one can refute the success of the AVG, but remember, they were also shooting down bombers and I think many times many folks don't realize that when the AVG's "Kills" are mentioned, quickly it is assumed it's against fighters and for even the lesser informed, "Zeros."

I seem to remember reading that the first Bf 109G captured by the British in late 1942 (Black 6) was flown against P-40s (probably by the Australian ace Bobby Gibbes) until he was ordered to stop because these simulated combats damaged the morale of the P-40 units.

DAF happily received the Tomahawk (and the later Kittyhawk) when they arrived, it considered to be an improvement over the Hurricane which was beginning to suffer under 109 assault by that point. (initially, DAF exchanges were competetive...but over time the Hurr's began suffering more and more.)

The Germans considered the "Curtiss" to be a dangerous opponent in a low alt dogfight and were most favorable in their commentary re: the Kittyhawk but in the latter case they still felt it was not quite the equal of their 109's. (per experten commentary documented by Shores in his Fighters over the Desert book)

estimated exchange rate Tomahawk/Kittyhawk re: 109 up to and including Alamein. 2.7:1 in favor of the 109. Spitfire envy certainly did not end with the arrival of the American lend lease fighters and there remains alot of hard feelings over the long delay in the plane's arrival in the Theater (which when it did immediately assumed top cover duties as did the Curtiss before it in relation to the Hurricane.

I found collaborating comments in Bergstrom's Black Cross/Red Star series regarding the P-40. That being an appreciation for the plane's horizontal capabilities vs. the "Messers" but inferiority in the veritical plane. Overall they considered it to be inferior to their Yak-1. The biggest thing they liked about the P40?....the radios. At the time Soviet fighter pilots only had receivers....squadron leaders only (or higher) having full radios.

Of course, the 109 tends to get all the glory. The real threat was another Luftwaffe plane, mostly unknown....but highly dangerous. No P40 would dare take it on.

Nikademus said:

Of course, the 109 tends to get all the glory. The real threat was another Luftwaffe plane, mostly unknown....but highly dangerous. No P40 would dare take it on.

Click to expand...

Nikademus said:

Of course, the 109 tends to get all the glory. The real threat was another Luftwaffe plane, mostly unknown....but highly dangerous. No P40 would dare take it on.

Click to expand...

Fortunately the one and only prototype was destroyed by Jones..

speaking of the Jones....they do currently hold a 2:0 kill ratio over the 109. Granted....they look like very crude early versions of the plane and some authors hedge on whether death by seagull counts as a legitimate kill.

Nikademus said:

speaking of the Jones....they do currently hold a 2:0 kill ratio over the 109. Granted....they look like very crude early versions of the plane and some authors hedge on whether death by seagull counts as a legitimate kill.

Click to expand...

I believe (IIRC) that the duly constituted Victory Credits Board reviewed Jones' claim and awarded him confirmation for one (1) u/i t/e aircraft Destroyed on the ground.

When the USAF reconvened the VCB's for all theatres, ground scores were disallowed from official victory credits and Jones' score wafted into obscurity..

Was reading recently about the P-40 compared to other allied fighters and what a couple of US aces said about the P-40, I think it was Bob Dehaven(14 kills) and Joal B Paris (9 kills) who said the P-40N was more manuverable than the P-38 (both flew the P-38 after P-40's), had a faster roll rate than even the P-51 and the 5 spare wing ment it had no G limit and was almost indestructable (no wonder the Russians liked them) and was there choice of fighter below 10'000 ft

Any details on which "N" they are referring to?

There was a considerably difference between some of the early "N"s and the later ones.

Sydhuey said:

Was reading recently about the P-40 compared to other allied fighters and what a couple of US aces said about the P-40, I think it was Bob Dehaven(14 kills) and Joal B Paris (9 kills) who said the P-40N was more manuverable than the P-38 (both flew the P-38 after P-40's), had a faster roll rate than even the P-51 and the 5 spare wing ment it had no G limit and was almost indestructable (no wonder the Russians liked them) and was there choice of fighter below 10'000 ft

Click to expand...

P-40 was one of the planes that was holding the line 'til the much better planes arrived.
Now with that said, It's easy to pick a single category and say 'P-40 was better in this than P-XY', but it would be nice to say that in other 5 or 10 categories P-40 was worse.
Hence they discontinued it in 1944.

wwii:)aircraft said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hello, I have some problems to undersand the logic of your post; the almost every situation the bf 109 could outclimb, out run, and out turn the P-40.And so simply said,outfight it with ease but;

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

Click to expand...

What should we think? In what point then, the BF 109 should not dominate the P-40?

First about we know, the soviet trials prove that the P-40 E was making a full sustainted turn in 19.4 s and at 242 m radius so at v²/r = 25.9, and the Me -109 in 20.2 to 20.5 (depending on sources) and 290 and more radius in meters, so radial acceleration is deduced at 26.4 or 2.69g value.

As i previously wrote

at 5km altitude P 40E is slower 574 km/h against 610 and 593 for Me 109G2 3guns, 5 guns respectivly
at 5km P40E has worst acceleration 7700m/s in 60s against 8720, 8400.
Time to turn at 1 km high 19,4 vs 20.5 , 22.6 is better for the P-40
Turn radius 242 vs 290, 315 is far better for the P-40

It's radial acceleration is 25.9 m/s , is lower than 109G2 one but higher than 109G2 (26,4) with underwing pods (24,2)

Click to expand...

So The P-40E was not outurned by the 109G in serial sustainted turn, unlike you said.

Secund, sometimes i wonder why i'm bothering to provide valuable data. If you don't understand, ask questions...

In other hand, soviet P-40 E in service was drasticly lightened (~3500 kg) and probably had a very smaller diving edge acceleration over the Bf-109 than it british and american brothers, smaller firepower and range too. That was the price to pay to stay competitive against a 109 in dogfights

But anyway and unlike you supposal, due to a better power to weight ratio providing a better initial acceleration for the 109, it was difficult for a P-40 pilot to escape from the german plane on the first dive moments, for this reason. Later, the weight was taking its rule, but not in initial and transitionnal figures. Moreover as you can see, the best ToT was obtained at a lower speed for the P-40 (280 km/h), than for the Bf-109 (330). So high speeds would take a while for the P-40 to be attained, and ever until any ToT/ Radius/ n.g acceleration graphic is provided, i'm not sure the P-40 was able to overturn the 109 in horizontal plan at higher speeds.

Finaly considering the Bf-109 bouncing from the top on the P-40, with acquired speed (energy), it gains higher available (but decreasing...) power in that transitionnal configuration, compared with that just available from the DB engine itself. So it could provide the 109 to fly at higher speed and higher AoA for the first turning circles, and consequently easily outurn during first circles the constant-speed turning P-40 at it's best turn rato, and defeat it !!! Until of course the 109's turning speed would decrease and take a constant value.

Actually, the situation was neither simple, nor easy for the P-40 on the ETO...

Regards

i'm not sure the P-40 was able to overturn the 109 in horizontal plan at higher speeds.

Click to expand...

Actually, it was at higher speeds where the P-40 proved to be more maneuverable even against more modern designs.
It is less an argument for sustained performance, and rather that the airframe allowed for much harder and tighter turns at high speeds.
The argument for turn gets a little foggy when it comes to speed and altitude because the P-40 is notably heavier where low speed dogfighting usually favors the lighter plane.
The first P-40s to see combat were recognized as being more maneuverable and durable in turns, however because the 109s were faster it was rare for them to tangle with P-40s. It follows the same tactical pattern that we see where aircraft have different advantages. Rarely do we see a plane with superior speed and less capable turn offering to enter a turn fight with a slower plane with superior turn ability.
You can look at earlier encounters where the P-36 encountered 109s and the tactical difference was much the same.

The commonality that follows what most P-40 pilots experience in any theater was that they did not have the altitude performance to compete where it mattered, so often they found themselves on the bottom end of a bounce.
It was generally the opinion, however, that most pilots felt the plane was very competitive and in a lot ways superior to axis aircraft at lower altitudes.

Nikademus said:

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 ...

Click to expand...

I expect to get Gamble's book for Christmas , but on 75 Sdn at Moresby in Mar-April 1942, I previously compared Wilson "Seek and Strike" (history of 75 Sdn), with the original combat reports of 4th and Tainan Air Groups, the Zero units present. I checked Gamble's sources on Google books and it seemed he used Wilson and Japanese Monograph 120, which is less detailed. The ratio you quoted from his book would seem to include Zero losses which were not to Kittyhawks. I found 2 Zeroes actually downed/crashlanded due to Kittyhawks in this period:
April 5: this report is actually missing, but several other sources agree PO2C Yoshie Takuro was KIA in combat with Kittyhawks this day
April 17: PO3C Goto Ryosuke*, forcelanded, WIA, after combat with K'hawks

Other Zero losses:
March 22: PO3C Kikuchi Keiji KIA, defensive fire of RAAF Hudsons
March 23: PO2C Yoshii Kyoichi KIA, AA, both sides' accounts agree
April 7: PO2C Tan Yukihisa KIA, defensive fire of USAAF A-24's
April 17: PO2C Sakai Yoshimi, 'suicide crash' in the combat report, but a Japanese first hand account says he dropped from formation and crashed into a mountainside of the Owen Stanley's on the way *to* Moresby, perhaps oxygen system failure.
April 28: PO3C Maeda Yoshimitsu hit a tree on a strafing pass near Moresby, crashlanded, POW (per Allied accounts), a strange incident since Maeda took off on an interception of Hudsons over Lae, was simply missing from Japanese perspective.
April 28: (then) PO2C Nishizawa Hiroyoshi (eventually the leading JNAF ace) ditched on return from a cover flight for bombers, but it reported no contact with allied a/c.

75 Sdn lost, per individual accounts in Wilson, 16 Kittyhawks to Zeroes, though one of those losses, April 17, has no corresponding Japanese claim. So it was more like 8:1 in favor of the Zeroes in that first deployment, though the Kitthawks did also shoot up some Zeroes on the ground at Lae.

The RAAF Kittyhawks did better however in the few engagements in August 1942 while based at Milne Bay:
Aug 11: PO3C Yonekawa Shokichi ditched, WIA, 75 and 76 sdn lost 2 Kittyhawks and pilots each; 75 Sdn claimed 2 Zeroes, AA claimed 3 and 3 probable.
Aug 23: a/c of PO2C Yamazaki Ichirobei heavily damaged, counted as 'expended', Wilson does not give any claim by Kittyhawks though 1 was engaged.
Aug 27: Lt. Yamashita Joji, PO1C Yamashita Sadao, PO2C Kakimoto Enji, and Sea1C Ninomiya Kihachi all missing. Allied accounts make clear that Kakimoto (POW) was downed by AA, the other three probably by Kittyhawks though one might possibly have been to B-26's. One Kittyhawk was lost.
So probably 4 or 5 Zeroes downed v 5 Kittyhawks in this period. Or, it would come out ~3:1 in favor of Zero if you count both the earlier and later deployments together.

*note: most of these names appear somewhere or other in English language sources with these transliterations, but a few don't, and in those cases I'm using what I think is the most likely pronunciation; even native Japanese speakers can't tell always tell a name's pronunciation for sure just from seeing it written in Chinese characters, as in these reports.

Joe

Hello Bill

Actually, it was at higher speeds where the P-40 proved to be more maneuverable even against more modern designs.

Click to expand...

I'm asking no better to trust you, Bill. But it should take curvature vs speed tables or abaccus for both planes to convince everyone.

It is less an argument for sustained performance, and rather that the airframe allowed for much harder and tighter turns at high speeds.

Click to expand...

Actually it seems that Messerschmitt airframe was stressed to withstand about 7.3 g in positive. It's 1.5 g more than its pilots. Anyway concerning human limits (loose of conscience) it's useless to stress the aircraft more than +6, -3G. Of course if you have some docs proving that Herr Professor Willy totally missed in fulfilling that technical request, it would be with pleasure...

The argument for turn gets a little foggy when it comes to speed and altitude because the P-40 is notably heavier where low speed dogfighting usually favors the lighter plane.

Click to expand...

No; this is completly false since the climb and turn ability are completly independent of the whole plane's weight, but mainly on it's wing loading and power loading parameters. More precisely it's a matter of power request to power available curves that itselves are depending on previous parameters i have just quoted.
For instance a Yak-1 with 2780 kg (162 kg/m²) with a 1100 hp Klimov (2.52 kg/hp), is a worse turner (20-21s) than a La -5 F (18-19s) at 3380 kg (192 kg/m²) but with 1850 hp engine (1.82 kg/hp all the same...) even if the Lavotchkin is 600 kg heavier !!!. Note; i have never noticed, they were turning their best time o.T. at same speed, bank angle and radius, each one having it's own flight caracteristics. In two worlds; due to it's high wing loading the La-5F had a high power need (or so called power request) , much higher than the Yak-1's one for climbing or turning tight, but had (a lot of...) the power (available) for that. Remarks; improved Yak-1 with an 1180 hp 105 PF klimov engine tured the tables again in it's favor (it had improved aerdynamics too, that plays it part too, better Cl/Cd are reducing power request values... ) with 17-18s.

The first P-40s to see combat were recognized as being more maneuverable and durable in turns, however because the 109s were faster it was rare for them to tangle with P-40s. It follows the same tactical pattern that we see where aircraft have different advantages. Rarely do we see a plane with superior speed and less capable turn offering to enter a turn fight with a slower plane with superior turn ability.

Click to expand...

Ok, being the 109's pilot i would also use the strong sides of my plane...

You can look at earlier encounters where the P-36 encountered 109s and the tactical difference was much the same.
The commonality that follows what most P-40 pilots experience in any theater was that they did not have the altitude performance to compete where it mattered, so often they found themselves on the bottom end of a bounce.
It was generally the opinion, however, that most pilots felt the plane was very competitive and in a lot ways superior to axis aircraft at lower altitudes.

Click to expand...

Well Bill. Honesltly considering both 109 G-2 parameters 3023 kg and 1250 hp, it makes 187 kg/m² and 2.42 hp/kg . Taking now the soviet P-40 E, 1150 hp and 3840 kg it makes 175 kg/m² and deplorable weight to power ratio 3.34 hp/kg, there is absolutly no reason for the P-40E to outurn the 109G-2.
So Kurfurst and Soren had perfectly the right to consider that figure as aberrant from flight mecanics rules.
But considering that (from LII test reports) that the Curtiss used the 5 min WEP (1325 hp?) during trials and was certainly flying at 3500-3600 kg rather than 3840 (not mentionned), makes the think at least possible (162 kg/m²) and (2.67 kg/m²).
And even with that all by analogy with other planes, we still have to prove that the "X-hawk" had an exceptionnal prop output around 280 km/h (and not the 109!) and astonishing wing lift.

I'm fed up with urban legends of blond reich knights asskiking hundreds of reds, froggies, yankees and roastbeefs, and did all i could for the P-40. It had an agressive look and glamourous sharkmouths, impressive firepower, sure. Was certainly not as bad as Kurfurst, Soren and others wanted to. But there is a limit , the plane was oversized and so overweighted for it's engine. During turns and immelmans it was loosing speed, with no way to recover it.

F = M "gamma" There is unfortunatly no miracles in the world of physics... Moreover i take the advantage of posting to kill another urban legend. Neither P-40, nor P-39 were unfortunately low atitude fighers. Never. Only mid-altitude fighters cause one speed blower. Soviet fighters were (low altitude), but had mid and low altitude blowers for that.

Regards

JoeB said:

I expect to get Gamble's book for Christmas , Joe

Click to expand...

If you've done a prior study on 75 sqdn, you'll probably be a little disapointed with Gamble. He doesn't attempt to do a full 'tic-tac' accounting of all plane losses ala Shores or Lundstrum and there are some frustratingly vague aspects combined with specific battle accountings. He also has a habit of jumping around the dateline when starting a new chapter that covers a different aspect and/or geographical area of the campaign which is jarring. His summaries are good though and help give a clue as to what was lost overall. Still....there's some "wiggle" room as mentioned where the reader is left to make educated guesses.

For March 1942 he accounts for 75 as follows:

12 losses (+6 operational losses in Australia prior to flying to PM)
-3 x op
-2 x ground
-2 to A6M (text hints 3 or more)
-5 ? (most probably to A2A - A6M)

grand total 18 out of 24 Kittyhawks... Gamble lists 5 serviceable Kittyhawks and 2 u/s' at the time of his summary. 3/30/42 (which would equal 25 Kittyhawks but the service crews did repair several planes during the time period)

A6M losses are listed for the same period as 17 x A6M (5 to A2A) and 6 x G4m

from the text, partial accounting of the losses suggests:

9 x ground (not confirmed)
1 to AA
5 to A2A
2 ? (op?)


of the 5 shot down A6M's one definitely appears to be from a Hudson while the other 4 are most likely to 75 squadron Kittyhawks. Taken at worst case it suggests 4 A6M to 2 Kittyhawks but the 5 lost Kitty's are most likely A2A since Gamble does a good job accounting for accidents and crashes as he documents the various daily missions. Optimal exchange estimate for the Japanese 4 losses in exchange for 7 Oz pilots (and would match the later month exchanges)

Gamble summaries that by end of April 22 x Kittyhawks were lost to all causes. I'm assuming he means total losses and is not counting repaired planes put back into service.

From the text i counted,


9 x Kittyhawk to A6M (a bomber might share partial credit for one)
3 x Kittyhawk (op)
1 x A6M to Kittyhawk
5 x A6M ground

Optimal Japanese score estimate 16 x Kittyhawks in exchange for 5 x A6M (3.1:1)


Overall Gamble doesn't really reveal anything genuinely new that hasn't been covered before in past works (like Bergerud's Fire in the Sky) with the exception (for me anyway) of No.75 and 8thFG's exploits in better detail but does offer more insights into certain aspects of the campaign covered more generally by broader works....... such as the relationships between Kenney and his subordinates and fellow leaders, the development of skip bombing and the arguments waged over it's viability and the nightmare serviceability issues that plagued the USAAF throughout 1942. As a reviewer commented online....biggest criticism is that he devotes a very small portion of the book to 1943 so there's not allot of detail regarding the Cartwheel air raids. Milne bay coverage of air skirmishes also appears to be lacking on review so you'll be disapointed there i'm afraid.

heres a whole page of stories from raaf, etc who flew 40s against germans and japs. might give you some insight. the other page i was looking for talked how the 40s were mainly used for low level bombing in the MTO and elsewhere. if i find that i will post..

RAAF 3 Squadron Stories

Nikademus said:

If you've done a prior study on 75 sqdn, you'll probably be a little disapointed with Gamble.

Click to expand...

But I have a low threshold for adding books to my collection and I'm sure I'll pick up something new somewhere in the book.

As far as Kittyhawk losses in March-April, those have been in other sources, not only Wilson's book which Gamble used, but "Winged Samurai" by Henry Sakaida actually reproduces a summary page from 75 Sdn's records (on p.50) with basically the same info: 8 destroyed in air combat, 4 missing, 5 'crashed on takeoff or landing following damage sustained in combat', total 17. Again, comparing to the Japanese combat reports (re: what happened to missing a/c) it would seem to be at least 15 losses to Zeroes. The Japanese bombers also made claims in a number of the engagements per the bomber groups' missions reports but their claim accuracy rate like that of Allied bombers was extremely low.

There's also some info on Japanese losses in Wilson's book which might make its way to Gamble's. Wilson used the files at US National Archives of decoded Japanese radio traffic, which seldom AFAIK outright disagree with the written Japanese mission reports, but is less detailed and not every message was intercepted and decoded, so Wilson gives this perspective for only some incidents. But I think the mission reports are pretty clear and almost entirely complete in this period, and I looked at them all, so I'd be curious what the Zero air combat losses would be past the 2 I specifically mentioned. I have to guess it's somebody's inference from less detailed info somewhere along the chain (note that the Japanese Monographs, of which Gamble also lists No. 120 as source, were written by Japanese officers postwar w/o reference to written records seized by the US, even where they existed. In some cases, for example JAAF losses in the Philippines in 1941-42, those recollections and other first hand accounts are all we'll ever have, but in this example the almost complete records did exist and once they could be accessed, when returned by US to Japan in mid 1950's and much more recently when the National Institute of Defense Studies in Japan put them online, something other countries *really* should also do, they definitively supercede contradictory recollections in the monographs IMO).

Joe

VG-33 said:

Actually it seems that Messerschmitt airframe was stressed to withstand about 7.3 g in positive. It's 1.5 g more than its pilots. Anyway concerning human limits (loose of conscience) it's useless to stress the aircraft more than +6, -3G. Of course if you have some docs proving that Herr Professor Willy totally missed in fulfilling that technical request, it would be with pleasure...

Click to expand...

It is always handy to have few extra "G"s in hand in the structure of the aircraft because it is quite possible for the pilot to withstand more "G"s than the airplane's "normal" G rating for a short period of time. Wither the aircraft can withstand it is another question.
The NACA put recording accelerometers into a few pylon racers in 1934-35 and found that the "G" loadings varied enormously during a 10 sec 180 degree turn. This was in practice with no other racers nearby let alone combat with people shooting. Nobody could hold a turn at a constant "G" load.
One trace showed the following "G" loads at 1 second intervals.

5.2, 3.5, 5.2, 6.2, 3.9, -0.3, 4.3, -0.4, 3.0

Please note that at two recorded times the plane was actually in negative "G" and was turning out of the turn. At a nominal 5 "G" turn at an entry speed of 250mph these racers would slow by about 40mph and the theoretical radius would tighten from 840ft to 600ft. The planes need constant adjustment of the elevators to control the "G" of the turn and this leads to the variations/swings in the "G" loading.
From the ground observers thought the turns looked smooth and well executed.

VG-33 - you think you're slick - now you're gone for good.