Bf-109 vs P-40

[davparlr]

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.

Joe

The is a new show on military called "missions that changed the war" emceed by Gary Sinise. On an episode about the AVG, it stated that Rangoon was attacked on Dec. 25th by 20 Sallys and 15 Oscars and was defended by 12 P-40s and some buffaloes. Three Japanese fighters were shot down and 12 Bombers. These claims were countered by 50% by Japanese reports. Two P-40s and some buffaloes were shot down. The Oscars were later mistaken for Zeros.

 

[JoeB]

The is a new show on military called "missions that changed the war" emceed by Gary Sinise. On an episode about the AVG, it stated that Rangoon was attacked on Dec. 25th by 20 Sallys and 15 Oscars and was defended by 12 P-40s and some buffaloes. Three Japanese fighters were shot down and 12 Bombers. These claims were countered by 50% by Japanese reports. Two P-40s and some buffaloes were shot down. The Oscars were later mistaken for Zeros.

According to Senshi Sosho Vol. 34, the strikes on Rangoon Dec 25th consisted of one formation of 27 Type 97 Heavy Bombers (*later* codenamed 'Sally') and 25 Type 1 Fighters of what was to become the AVG's frequent opponent, 64th Flying Regiment. However this formation became separated into two pieces. Then another formation consisted of 8 Type 97 HB's, 27 Type 97 Light Bombers (later 'Ann') and 32 Type 97 Fighters of the 77th Flying Regiment. The Japanese lost 3 Type 97 HB's (although many others were hit), 2 Type 1 Fighters and 2 Type 97 Fighters*, while the 64th claimed 10 enemy fighters, 77th claimed 7, and the Type 97 bombers claimed 19(!) attacking fighters downed. "Flying Tigers" by Dan Ford and "Bloody Shambles Vol 1" by Chris Shores, et al, have the same info, the former book footnotes SS V. 34, and the latter appears to use it too though it doesn't have footnotes.

Those two books largely agree that 13 AVG P40's claimed 15 bombers, 7 'Navy Zeroes', 1 'Type 96' fighter, and a Bf109(!). Two P-40's belly landed in fields, one shot up by a 'Zero', and one by bomber return fire, another dead sticked landed on its wheels, apparently from bomber return fire.

12 67th Sdn RAF Buffaloes claimed 1 bomber, 2 Zeroes and 1 'Type 96'. 4 Buffalo's were shot down outright pilots KIA, and 2 landed on their wheels badly damaged, all apparently by enemy fighters. The Buffalo's also spotted Bf109's so that wasn't just the AVG's imagination, though obviously none were actually present.

Not including 'probables' for any of the claimants.

Note that AVG claims later on were usually less exaggerated than in this case, and most of their later combats were alone, so this case is relatively unusual in having overlapping AVG and RAF claims. It appears from Japanese accounts that both Type 1's were lost to P-40's, one definitely (in a collision both sides mentioned, the P-40 survived, Type 1 didn't). Other than that it's unclear who shot down what.

*one of the pilots, Sgt Akira Aoki, was captured, the first Japanese POW in the theater. He was a Korean actually, and under his real name Lee Geun-seok was a founding member of the ROKAF after WWII. He was KIA attacking an NK tank formation in an F-51 in early July 1950.

Joe

 

[FLYBOYJ]

one of the pilots, Sgt Akira Aoki, was captured, the first Japanese POW in the theater. He was a Korean actually, and under his real name Lee Geun-seok was a founding member of the ROKAF after WWII. He was KIA attacking an NK tank formation in an F-51 in early July 1950.

Joe

Great info Joe, you're a wealth of knowledge!!!!

 

[Siegfried]

The Allison V-1710 was a decent engine when fitted with a two stage, infinetly vairable supercharger as used in the P-40Q.

Why would it take Allison 2 years after the start of the war to offer variable speed supercharger (either 2 speeds or hydraulic) let alone two stages when every American radial offered a choice of two speeds, often two stages as a further option or turbo as another option.

Granted it wasn't going to completely make up for the P-40/Me 109 weight difference but it would have given more power at all altitudes through a better matching of blower power to requirements.

sorry I posted this in the wrong thread

 

[Francis marliere]

I believe you mean the 2nd Air Group (or 'kokutai').

Joe,

sorry for answering so late. Thanks for the precision.

Best regards,

Francis

 

[Arossihman]

Man i got a lot of catching up to do!

 

[Sagittario64]

this is a very hard decision without the "tie" option. on one hand, what model of 109 are you referring to? second lets just say early G maybe G-2. The 109's cannon gives it a slight edge in single-shot destructive capability, plus the 2 machine guns to finish the job. on the other hand for raw hitting power the 6 .50cals of the P-40 would shred the 109 in an instant, provided it can get in line for the shot. im not sure how well the p-40 turns as compared to the 109, but whatever the result, it comes down to pilot skill. id say you cant rely on aircraft specifications alone. look at whos flying them. if i must choose, then i choose the p-40, despite the 109 being my favorite. theres many many factors i have to consider when making decisions. aircraft alone, p-40s are slightly(only very slightly) better than the 109 if the task is to obliterate the opposition plane. but im also a newbie so if im wrong i would like to be shown whats right too

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just found this about the Hamp in the Pacific. Good info!

"On August 6, 1942 the Yawata Maru (Unyō) deivered fifteen A6M3 Model 32 Zeros to Lakunai Airfield near Rabaul. Their first interception was the next day against 5th Air Force B-17s. On August 22, a detachment flew to Buna Airfield."

Pacific Wrecks - 2nd Kokutai (582nd Kokutai)

 

[Friskykillface]

I'm not to keen on all the models used and what time period they were used, but the P40 was used at pearl harbor correct? so it was a very early model plane. Given its early development I dont think its fair to pit it against planes improved and "redesigned" using the knowledge gained through "trial by fire" so to speak, in the 1943 time period. The P40's may have been around then, but that doesn't mean they will compete directly with the newwer planes. Also, just like the russians did with their I-16's the proper tactics are crucial. The I-16 pilots HAD to draw the 109's into a turn fight to have a fighting chance at all. Same could be said about the P40's. Obviously the P40 pilots would draw the enemies into a fight on THEIR terms, giving themselves every advantage they could get. There were good planes on all sides. My PERSONAL OPINION is not that the P40 was "better" but I favor it over the 109.

 

[tomo pauk]

Welcome to the forum.
Unfortunately, the P-40s were pitted against Bf-109s in real world. We can judge real-world capabilities. Those changed much as the ww2 progressed.
The P-40 (no suffix) was 1st delivered in June 1940, ie. almost two years behind the Spitfire I and Bf-109E, and in the time the Spit II and 109E-7 will become available. While more useful, due to much more fuel, the timing is wrong, ie. late. The Spit II and 109E were also featuring a more substantial protection.
The P-40B and P-40C were roughly comparable to the B-109E-7 and Spitfire II, ie. the drop tank capable aircraft of later BoB vintage. Those P-40s were maybe half a year later introduced than Europeans.
Once the next major version is available, the P-40D, the Bf-109 is at the version F-4. It has a much better engine, and 20mm cannon more or less nullifies the improved protection of the P-40D. The main problem is that the engine, while a bit more powerful than the old V-1710-33, does not offer any more HP above 14000 ft. With 2 more guns their ammo, from the P-40E on, the 'basic weight' is now 6700 lbs, vs. 5990 lbs of the P-40B. The P-40 is now not only bigger (= more drag = less speed) than Bf-109, it is much heavier, and the engine power is not sufficient to make it a performer. Even when war emergency rating for the V-1710s was introduced, that helped only under 10000 ft.
The installation of the Packard Merlin V-1650-1 slightly improves the situation above 15000 ft, but the 109 is still a far better performer, circa 50 mph of speed difference is simply too big, as it is the rate of climb.

As for the P. Harbor comment - the 1st users in a shooting war were RAF, RAAF and SAAF units, mostly in the N. Africa, from April of 1941 on. Their experiences were channeled to the USA, and many aircraft were modified accordingly. Hence introduction of self-sealing tanks and heavier armament in most of the combat A/C. P-40s problem was that it was much easier to cram in the protection and firepower, than it was to acquire a V-12 engine with greatly increased power, to cater for the great increase in weight.
If the pilot of P-40 is able to lure the enemy where it suits him, or not, that is a matter of pilots, not the aircraft.

 

[Friskykillface]

"Once the next major version is available, the P-40D, the Bf-109 is at the version F-4. It has a much better engine, and 20mm cannon more or less nullifies the improved protection of the P-40D. The main problem is that the engine, while a bit more powerful than the old V-1710-33, does not offer any more HP above 14000 ft. With 2 more guns their ammo, from the P-40E on, the 'basic weight' is now 6700 lbs, vs. 5990 lbs of the P-40B. The P-40 is now not only bigger (= more drag = less speed) than Bf-109, it is much heavier, and the engine power is not sufficient to make it a performer. Even when war emergency rating for the V-1710s was introduced, that helped only under 10000 ft.
The installation of the Packard Merlin V-1650-1 slightly improves the situation above 15000 ft, but the 109 is still a far better performer, circa 50 mph of speed difference is simply too big, as it is the rate of climb."


I agree with pretty much everything you said. Thanks for the "Welcome" Its saddens me that the P-40 was so.... neglected? towards the latter part of the war. Even if not "neglected" I think a lot more work went into the BF-109's as far as "upgrades." Its a lot more cost efficient to improve what you have than to create a new fighter. Which works both ways as well, the Germans were updating and making revisions to the BF-109, but what were the Americans REALLY doing to improve the P-40? Bigger engine? Probably more of a weight and aerodynamics problem rather than engine power. The Germans added cannons, which is fine, but the American planes have always kinda stuck to those .50's so not having cannons doesn't seem like a big deal, Considering even the P51 was still using .50 cal. MG's. Were the Americans working on something else while the P-40 was quickly getting outclassed by all these later model 109's? The P-40 served well not only in africa, but also over in china and the pacific. This is irrelevant though considering this is a topic about the BF-109's and the P-40's. The BF 109's were UNDOUBTEDLY way better later on but I'm curious how they fared against its various opponents at the time it was introduced. Those 1941 BF 109's. I understand there were no MAJOR improvements made on the vulnerable P-40 that would allow it to "keep pace" with those BF-109's later on, but how did it compare when they both FIRST saw action against each other? I would think it would be a much more even fight at that point in time.

 

[Friskykillface]

You're also playing to the BF-109's strong points. How would that same BF-109 fare at lower altitude where the P-40's engine was more efficient?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You're also playing to the BF-109's strong points. How would that same BF-109 fare at lower altitude where the P-40's engine was more efficient?

What model -109? IMO any "G" model -109 is superior to just about any model P-40 at any altitude. Even the -109F is more than a handful for any P-40 mark. The P-40 will have some advantages in roll rate (I believe the P-40 had a slightly lower wing loading) but outside of that one would be relying on tactics and/ or pilot skill. You might find some performance charts earlier in this thread or in some other threads that would at least compare both aircraft on paper. I do believe however that the P-40 was very under rated but again, it's not going to compete with G model -109s, that includes the later model production P-40s against say the Bf-109G6

 

[tomo pauk]

<snip>
Its saddens me that the P-40 was so.... neglected? towards the latter part of the war. Even if not "neglected" I think a lot more work went into the BF-109's as far as "upgrades." Its a lot more cost efficient to improve what you have than to create a new fighter. Which works both ways as well, the Germans were updating and making revisions to the BF-109, but what were the Americans REALLY doing to improve the P-40? Bigger engine? Probably more of a weight and aerodynamics problem rather than engine power.

Historically, the USAF and other users were correct to 'neglect' the P-40 as the war wore on. The P-38, - 47 and -51 were offering far better capabilities. The engine power was a big problem for the P-40 - those other three fighters were also heavy, but have had plenty of power to make them performers. The P-38, -47 and -51 were also in production or in pipeline by the time of Pearl Harbor, and it made much more sense to improve those. The Curtiss have had a license to build P-47, but they botched that badly.
Maybe it would've been better that P-40 received a 2-stage V-1710 engine instead installing it on the P-63?

The Germans added cannons, which is fine, but the American planes have always kinda stuck to those .50's so not having cannons doesn't seem like a big deal, Considering even the P51 was still using .50 cal. MG's. Were the Americans working on something else while the P-40 was quickly getting outclassed by all these later model 109's? The P-40 served well not only in africa, but also over in china and the pacific. This is irrelevant though considering this is a topic about the BF-109's and the P-40's. The BF 109's were UNDOUBTEDLY way better later on but I'm curious how they fared against its various opponents at the time it was introduced. Those 1941 BF 109's. I understand there were no MAJOR improvements made on the vulnerable P-40 that would allow it to "keep pace" with those BF-109's later on, but how did it compare when they both FIRST saw action against each other? I would think it would be a much more even fight at that point in time.

Wouldn't want to sound rude, but you might really want to dwell into this 30+ page long thread. The Americans were busy designing and improving better fighters, and eventually produced and deployed piston engined fighters that were either equal or better than what Germans had. For major improvement of the P-40, you need a 2-stage engine made in USA, and those were not widely available, apart for P-51.
The 1941 Bf-109s were the best fighter when introduced. Only shortcoming was the combat radius, the punch was not the best either.

You're also playing to the BF-109's strong points. How would that same BF-109 fare at lower altitude where the P-40's engine was more efficient?

Point the nose up and start climbing. Once the P-40 is sufficiently under you, dive on it.
In fighter to fighter combat, strong cards of the Bf-109 were worth more than strong cards of the P-40.

 

[Friskykillface]

Fair enough. I've been going through this topic page by page, its very interesting. You are right though, seems one of the main problems with the P-40's was the lack of a powerhouse 2 stage engine. Again, like I said in my original post, I'm quite content with the fact that the BF 109 was a better fighter in some or all aspects. I personally prefer the P-40 though. I always put my money on the underdog though You don't happen to know how much ammo those BF109's would carry do you? Compared to the P-40? Ammo Capacity could be important given you survive long enough

 

[michaelmaltby]

Some good insights here:

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/index.htm

 

[tomo pauk]

Fair enough. I've been going through this topic page by page, its very interesting. You are right though, seems one of the main problems with the P-40's was the lack of a powerhouse 2 stage engine. Again, like I said in my original post, I'm quite content with the fact that the BF 109 was a better fighter in some or all aspects. I personally prefer the P-40 though. I always put my money on the underdog though You don't happen to know how much ammo those BF109's would carry do you? Compared to the P-40? Ammo Capacity could be important given you survive long enough

The P-40 carried between 200 and 615 (!? - on the -D version, hopefully it's not a typo) bullets per HMGs, and, if the LMGs were installed, 490-500 rpg. The Bf-109E carried 60 rounds for the 20mm cannons, the early 109F carried only one 20mm with 60 rounds drum. For the MG 151, between 150 and 200 rounds was carried. For two LMGs up to 1000 rpg was carried if the prop cannon was not installed, later reduced to 500 rpg from 109F on. The MG 131, that replaced the MG 17 as a cowl gun, was supplied with 250 rpg.

 

[GingahNinja]

I don't see where you get that from. The P-40s landing gear wasn't exactly a marvel either and its arrangement was aerodynamically inefficient. Most articles I have read describe the P-40's airframe as overly complex for a single engined fighter (e.g. 5 spar wing). I do think the P-40s, in its Kittyhawk variants, were decently armed and overall acceptable fighters, but inferior to Spitfire and Bf 109 not to even mention the Mustang.

Not disagreeing with you at all but didn't P-40 pilots realized in the PTO that if faced with a head on pass against a Zero that the 5 spar wing actually had a better survivability than the Zero's? I believe there are stories claiming this as well.

 

[Glider]

Some good insights here:

The P-40 in Soviet Aviation

Excellent site many thanks for pointing it out. I was interested to see that the Russians didn't thik the B25 had sufficient protection in its fuels tanks and made a modification themselves. Thanks again

 

[pattern14]

The Bf 109 for sure; no contest.