Bf-109 vs P-40 (1 Viewer)

FLYBOYJ said:

NOT TRUE.

Click to expand...

Actually it is true.

Very impressive post.

Ever hear of Guangzhou? In the west they called it canton.

Guess what outfit escourted B-25 bombers there on its final day of operatrion, july 4th 1942.

http://www.flyingtigersavg.com/tiger1.htm

Yes, the AVG, NOT 23rd Fighter Group.

On that mission, the Tigers reported an odd shaped aircraft with a square wing (Col Scott mentions this in his book, and Tex Hill also brought this up at an airshow I saw him give a lecture at in the 1980s, in response to someone saying the Tigers never fought zeros), the only such aircraft was the imperial Navy's A6M3 'Hamp'. So no offense, but I'll take the word of the 23 FG CO, Col Scott, and of one of the best AVG pilots, Tex Hill over revisionist history.

You yourself mentioned that two zero wrecks were found by the chinese, the only ones who would. The AVG bases were in a very primative area of china, travel except by air took quite a long time even from relitively close by.

I never said they mixed it up every day, but they did fight the Imperial navy at times.

Nxthanos said:

Actually it is true.

Very impressive post.

Ever hear of Guangzhou? In the west they called it canton.

Guess what outfit escourted B-25 bombers there on its final day of operatrion, july 4th 1942.

HISTORY: American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers)


Yes, the AVG, NOT 23rd Fighter Group.

Click to expand...

The distance between Hong Kong and Guangzhou is over 100 miles, not quite the same place and its even further north east. Indeed it was the AVG's last mission and what was left of the AVG had already abandoned its bases in the west and was already being planned to be merged into the 23rd which was based towards the east. All this is documented in David Jablowonski's book "Greater East Asia Cp-Prosperity Sphere" part of the "Airwar" series. Another read that states that there were no Mitsubishi fighters being flown against the AVG. I give you that - it was their last mission but you're original statement...

"Chennault also identified the plane and sent full reports on it when the Japanese operationally tested it in China. A lot of people today want to claim the AVG only fought nates and some Oscars, but they also mixed it up with Zeros. Not over Burma, but often during pentration attacks on places like Hong kong, whcih were defended by the Imperial Navy not army fighters."

Click to expand...

I guess one mission on their last day of operation 100 miles from your claim counts as "often"?!? BTW, 4 enemy aircraft were claimed that day, any information on what they were and who claimed them????

I'll tell you - The AVG's last combat was over Hengyang on the day it was disbanded, 4 July. In this final action, four Ki-27s were shot down for no loss. This was taken from one of the AVG sites.

Do you have proof to back up your claim about the IJNAF fighting in South Eastern China??? Do you have lists of the flotillas or squadrons based in that part of China??? Did the AVG ever claim one? NO. Here's a list of KIA/ MIA/ POW JAAF pilots who flew against the AVG. Not one Naval Officer.

http://chinaburmaindiawwii.devhub.c...hter-pilots-lost-in-china-burma-area-1941-42/

BTW - two on the list were from July 4, 1942, the AVG's last mission.

Nxthanos said:

On that mission, the Tigers reported an odd shaped aircraft with a square wing (Col Scott mentions this in his book, and Tex Hill also brought this up at an airshow I saw him give a lecture at in the 1980s, in response to someone saying the Tigers never fought zeros), the only such aircraft was the imperial Navy's A6M3 'Hamp'. So no offense, but I'll take the word of the 23 FG CO, Col Scott, and of one of the best AVG pilots, Tex Hill over revisionist history.

You yourself mentioned that two zero wrecks were found by the chinese, the only ones who would. The AVG bases were in a very primative area of china, travel except by air took quite a long time even from relitively close by.

I never said they mixed it up every day, but they did fight the Imperial navy at times.

Click to expand...

Hmmmm, from "often" to this?

It sounds like you're side-stepping. The two wrecks found were well documented and weren't made airworthy until the AVG was disbanded. Those aircraft were enroute to Hanoi and were pre-propduction A6M2s. At the time those aircraft went missing the AVG wasn't even operational! The AVG had nothing to do with the recovery and it was documented from several sources that those aircraft were A6M2s even though one photograph identifies the aircraft as a "Hamp" it serial number showed what it really was. An AVG mechanic (Neumann) eventually assisted in getting one aircraft airworthy and it is shown clearly in the sources I posted.

Despite what you claim Tex Hill says, HISTORY not "revisionist history" shows there were absolutely NO "Hamps" any where in that area on July 4, 1942, as a matter of fact there is no documented evidence that there were any IJNAF units anywhere close to where the AVG were operating, especially in their last month. There have been numerous other sources besides "Bloody Shambles" that places the first Hamps in in the Rabual area during the last part of the summer, 1943. I've met many PTO aces who have claimed that the Japanese have used the Bf-109 and Me-110 as well.

Here's a site that says Robert Scott took on "twin engine Messerschmitts." Is this revisionist history as well???

The Flying Tigers

Go back to the AVG aces and kill lists. Not one Zero shown.

Here's a discussion about the very same subject. It seems the IJNAF did not make an apperance in south eastern China until 1943, but again, provide us with your sources to say otherwise...

http://www.warbirdforum.com/neumann.htm

I have met dozens of WW2 aces who I have the highest respect for but many times they have misspoken about events and aircraft and I think its more of "father time" catching up with them. No doubt that Scott shot down Zeros, he didn't do this prior to July 1942. If you're so certain the AVG fought against Zeros, provide up with those units. JAAF and IJNAF unit locations are well documented and we even have researches on this site from Japan who can assist you, so please, let us know your sources, I'm all ears!

keep in mind too, the "squared wingtips" of the Hamp are just the folding wingtips of the A6M2 removed for land based operation (improved dive acceleration slightly). So any crashed A6M2 could look exactly like a Hamp...except for the engine. The mount is moved back, cutting into the front fuselage fuel tank space. That's the best way to pick them at a glance, never the wings.

Oscars have squared wings too, easiest tell for them is the main gear.

No kidding otherwise they all look alike in old war footage, they really do. But why does it make such a big difference anyway? they all perform similarly. Zero has more guns but Oscar will kill you just as dead.

vanir said:

keep in mind too, the "squared wingtips" of the Hamp are just the folding wingtips of the A6M2 removed for land based operation (improved dive acceleration slightly). So any crashed A6M2 could look exactly like a Hamp...except for the engine. The mount is moved back, cutting into the front fuselage fuel tank space. That's the best way to pick them at a glance, never the wings.

Oscars have squared wings too, easiest tell for them is the main gear.

No kidding otherwise they all look alike in old war footage, they really do. But why does it make such a big difference anyway? they all perform similarly. Zero has more guns but Oscar will kill you just as dead.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%

The Hamp made up for a lack of performance on that model. I think the clipped wings actually hurt its maneuverability.

That's what pilots at Rabaul found out. It was only about six months in service when they put the wingtips back on. What I suspect though is both manoeuvrability...and an ever so slightly improved cruise economy. I mean without the wingtips Zeros couldn't quite make it back to Rabaul bases, if they had nowhere else to put down for refuelling (they did have a couple of partial fields on the way serviced by subs), those Guadal raids could be one way for Zeroes.

I'm just thinking ad hoc here but what do you think as a pilot FlyboyJ, is it conceivable the wingtips could give you a couple of hundred km maybe more range, squeeze your way back to Rabaul with the smaller front tank?
I mean it does seem rather strange the whole airbase took them off, then put them back on. More than just pilot preference.

I've heard about designers (and mechanics) "clipping" the wings of their aircraft You're removing wing area when you do so but you can pick up speed. Additionally the aircraft is a lot less stable and range will suffer. Look at the unlimiteds at Reno.

"Clipping" the wing not only reduces the square footage, it changes the aspect ratio of the wing. Probably by a bigger percentage than the change in wing area. I am not sure what that does to the lift/drag ratio of the wing as a whole.

I'm kind of really fascinated by this now. I might try roaming around the web a bit and see what I can dig up about quantifiable performance variations achieved by clipping wings. I suspect the pilot would be using more AoA through manoeuvres and at cruise, for which both altitude and airspeed would suffer I should think even if level speed gains are to be made at all out power settings. I'll look up unlimiteds at Reno, I read up the Bearcat site and checked out some mad hotrod Mustangs once, geez those things look fun.

I just know so little about it in any mathematical capacity which is really what's called for here I think, you guys are much better at the figures than me.

Spitfire - effects of clipping the wings:

I couldn't open the pdf for some reason but I should've thought, of course I can check the spitfireperformance website, they'll have info.

Thanks tomo

?
I've opened it jus now, in PDF XChange Viever though.

Nxthanos said:

Famous P-40 pilots

Nicky Barr: RAAF ace (11 victories); also a member of the Australian national rugby team.
Gregory Boyington: AVG/US Marine Corps; later commanded USMC VMF-214, the "Black Sheep Squadron".)
Clive Caldwell: RAAF, highest-scoring P-40 pilot from any air force (22 victories); highest-scoring Allied pilot in North Africa;[85] Australia's highest-scoring ace in World War II (28.5 victories).
Daniel H. David: USAAF; later famous as the comedian and actor Dan Rowan; scored two victories and was wounded, while flying P-40s in the Southwest Pacific.
Billy Drake: RAF, the leading British P-40 ace, with 13 victories.
James Francis Edwards: RCAF, 15.75 victories (12 on the P-40); also wrote two books about British Commonwealth Kittyhawk pilots.[86]
Geoff Fisken: RNZAF, the highest scoring British Commonwealth ace in the Pacific theater (11 victories), including five victories in Kittyhawks.
Jack Frost: SAAF, the highest scoring air ace in a South African unit, with 15 victories (seven on the P-40); missing in action since 16 June 1942.[86]
John Gorton: RAAF; Prime Minister of Australia, 1968–1971; flew Kittyhawks with No. 77 Squadron in New Guinea and was an instructor on the type.
John F. Hampshire Jr.: USAAF, 23rd FG, China; equal top-scoring US P-40 pilot (13 victories).
David Lee "Tex" Hill: AVG/USAAF, 2nd Squadron AVG and 23rd FG USAAF, 12.25 P-40 victories (18.25 total).
Bruce K. Holloway: AVG/USAAF, equal top-scoring US P-40 pilot (13 victories); later a USAF general (four-star) and commander of Strategic Air Command.[87]
James H. Howard: AVG/USAAF, six victories in P-40s with the AVG; later awarded the Medal of Honor following a single action in a P-51 over Europe.
Nikolai Fyodorovich Kuznetsov: VVS, twice Hero of the Soviet Union; most of his 22 victories were scored in P-40s.
Stepan Novichkov: VVS, highest scoring Soviet P-40 ace, with 19 victories; a further 10 victories on other types.
Petr Pokryshev: VVS, 14 victories in P-40s; twice Hero of the Soviet Union; eight victories on other types.
William N. (Bill) Reed: AVG/USAAF, commanded 3rd FG, Chinese-American Composite Wing (Provisional), 14th Air Force; nine victories in P-40s.
Robert Lee Scott, Jr.: USAAF, commander of the 23rd FG, China; more than 10 victories in P-40s.
Kenneth M. Taylor: USAAF; one of only two US pilots to get airborne (in a P-40) during the attack on Pearl Harbor (7 December 1941), during which he shot down two aircraft and was wounded in the arm.
Keith Truscott: RAAF; pre-war star of Australian football; became an ace in the UK during 1941, while flying Spitfires; commanded a Kittyhawk squadron at the Battle of Milne Bay (New Guinea, 1942); killed in an accident in 1943, while flying a P-40.
Boyd Wagner: USAAF; while flying P-40s, Wagner became the first USAAF ace of World War II (on 17 December 1941), during the Philippines Campaign.
Len Waters: RAAF, the only Australian Aboriginal fighter pilot of World War II.
George Welch: USAAF; one of only two US pilots to get airborne (in a P-40) during the attack on Pearl Harbor. Welch destroyed three Japanese aircraft that day.

Source:
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quite a few aces there, the Soviet pilots are particualrly impressive, as they fought the 109 head to head same as the brits, and their P-40s came out on top.

Click to expand...

And what is this supposed to prove? The list of Bf 109 aces will be by far longer and more impressive (as in: the sum of claimed kills will be much, much higher). Caldwell got 10 Bf 109s awarded, I stopped counting Marseille's P-40 kills after no. 17 (and I already removed misidentified Hurricanes).

That list just proves it was slightly better than a Cessna 150 ! (I'm trying to be funny, fyi)

I think the P-40 is better, partly because it's my favorite. Also, the P-40 was very rugged.

Favorite does not always equal the best...

Flyboy,

I may be wrong but I think that the 21 kokutai, which arrived at Rabaul in summer 42, was equipped with A6M3 'Hamp'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Regards,

Francis

Francis marliere said:

Flyboy,

I may be wrong but I think that the 21 kokutai, which arrived at Rabaul in summer 42, was equipped with A6M3 'Hamp'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Regards,

Francis

Click to expand...

Hi Francis;

You are probably correct. Point earlier that the first A6M3 WERE NOT assigned to China anywhere close to the AVG.

Francis marliere said:

Flyboy,

I may be wrong but I think that the 21 kokutai, which arrived at Rabaul in summer 42, was equipped with A6M3 'Hamp'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

I believe you mean the 2nd Air Group (or 'kokutai'). Their Model 32 Zeroes (A6M3 later codenamed 'Hamp') were AFAIK the first encountered in combat by the Allies, against unescorted bombers in defense of Rabaul and then against US Army and RAAF fighters in New Guinea from August 1942. Due to their shorter range (than the Model 21) they were not encountered on offensive operations over Guadalcanal until the Japanese set up bases closer to that island.

As far as AVG v JNAF, Flyboyj is correct: never happened by any credible evidence. The victories claimed by the AVG on July 3/4 1942 were against Type 97 Fighters (later codenamed 'Nate') of the 54th Flying Regiment ('sentai') JAAF, 8 were claimed over the two days, 4 actually lost. At that time late in AVG's career they may have encountered Type 1 Fighters (later codenamed 'Oscar') of the 10th Independent Company ('chutai') JAAF which was also in Southern China, in addition to their regular retactable undercarriage opponents, Type 1's of the 64th Flying Regiment based in Thailand. There were no JNAF fighter units based in China between September 1941 and 1944*, Hong Kong or anywhere else.

This isn't 'revisionist history' but simply a matter of filling in details from the Japanese side which weren't known to pilots of the AVG (or 23rd FG). Also note that the Navy Zero and Army Type 1 weren't definitely recognized by the Allies as being different types until 1943, nor was the codename system (Zeke, Oscar, Nate etc) made standard until '43 either. On one hand, anachronistically using the codenames to refer to Japanese a/c encountered in '42 might clarify for the modern casually interested reader what plane is being referred to. But in this discussion we see the downside: using the later well known codenames to refer to 1942 tends to give the impression that the Allies knew much about their Japanese opponents in '42, when in fact they didn't. There was no way for AVG pilots meeting Type 1's in Burma and China to accurately compare notes with, say, USAAF pilots meeting Zeroes in the Philippines and Dutch East Indies at the same time to determine whether it was really the same plane or a different one they were encountering...if they'd even had any time or any mechanism for that kind of real time communication, which they didn't. It took quite awhile to sort out all the observations being made from the Allied side; but even then WWII observers on one side simply didn't have the information we now have from both sides, which says pretty strongly: no Zeroes v AVG.

*or at least were not encountered by US fighters until then, units based on Hainan island to protect convoys from US bombers, and training units in Shanghai area encountered by 14th AF units after they got long range P-51's to reach those areas, up to then safe rear areas used for training.

Joe

Great post Joe, thanks!

Joe, many thanks for your post. Was hoping to hear from you.