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.
Stig1207 said:
Click to expand...

As you noted yourself, your opinion on this whole discussion was already made up before I ever posted, so I certainly don't expect to change your mind. Further debate of this specific segue about 24 March just serves to distract others reading the thread so I'll opt out of that.

Here is an updated summary of what I've posted to date from MAW II and III, so far 9 days:

July 8 1942 (112 RAF and 3 RAAF Kittyhawk Is vs. LW Bf 109Fs) 4 Bf 109F and 1 Ju 87 lost / 0 P-40s lost.
Oct 13 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs escorting SAAF Kittyhawk Is vs. LW Bf 109Fs) 3 Bf 109's / 1 P-40 lost.
Oct 27 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs escorting RAF Hurricanes vs Lw Bf 109Fs) 3 Bf 109's lost / 0 P-40s lost.*
Dec 8 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs and Ks vs JG 77 Bf 109F and G) 4 Bf 109s lost / 1 P-40 lost
Dec 30 1942 (3 RAAF Kittyhawk III vs. JG 77 Bf 109F and G) 4 Bf 109s lost / 0 P-40s lost
23 March 1943 (USAAF 79 FG vs. JG 77 & JG 51) 2 Bf 109s lost to P-40's / 0 P40s lost
24 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 2 Bf 109s lost (+4 lost for 'unknown reasons')/ 1 P-40 lost
29 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (4 destroyed +2 crash-landed) and 3 He 111's and 1 Ju 88 / 2 P-40's lost (1 to AA)
31 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (3 destroyed +3 crash-landed) and Ju 87 lost to P-40 / 1 P-40 lost**

*In an 8 day period in Oct 1942 where DAF P-40s (with some USAAF support) roughly 'broke even' against the LW, Shooting down 29 Bf 109's and 10 MC 202's for 31 P-40s & 3 Spits

** In the four USAAF vs. Luftwaffe clashes listed above between 23-31 March 1943 16 Bf 109s were lost (11 destroyed and 5 crash landed) +5 bombers / vs. 3 P-40s.

A few more fun facts about the P-40
  • Its worth pointing out there were 46 Commonwealth P-40 Aces in WW2, including 7 double aces specifically in the Med Theater, and another 16 USAAF aces in the Med including 3 or 4 double aces.
  • At least 3 of the top LW Experten were shot down by P-40 pilots, I think it's more like 5 or 6 but I'd have to spend some time to prove that.
  • By comparison there was only 1 USAAF P-39 ace, in the Pacific Theater.
  • The Soviets also had multiple P-40 Aces inlcuding 3 HSU recipients.
  • The P-40 could out-dive and out-turn the Bf 109, though the 109 had a much higher ceiling, better climb rate and better acceleration.
  • Contrary to what many sources will tell you, unlike the Hurricane or the P-39, P-40s in the Med were not relegated to fighter bomber attacks in mid-1942, they were still being used (with success) in fighter-sweeps, bomber escorts and interceptions as late as Mid 1943.

S
 
Last edited:

Nope, I'm not the one out to prove or disprove anything. I pointed out that the information given in MAWIII for 24 March, did not confirm your conclusions; their were other plausible possibilities. Had you written as you do now 2 + 4 unknown losses, I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.
Agree that there is no need to debate the issue further.
 

Actually, I think the "unknown causes" is ridiculous - it's obvious that a 2 hour running fight would involve multiple units and it's also obvious the fight start south and moved north during that two hours. I just wrote the 2+4 so as to be able to move on in the discussion.

Next post on this will be some numbers crunching.

S
 
Just to chime in...the P40 was far more versatile weapon than the Me109. Carried a fair sized bomb load and wrecked havoc on German Forces.
After a bombing raid had the performance to fight and get back home. Not so much for the Stuka despite being escorted by MEs and FWs.

The FW190 was also present. They gave the P40 a hard time. Not too many were deployed. The FW190 was medium altitude fighter that was fast down low too and had a good roll rate. Though the P40 decidedly could turn inside in a turn fight! Could not pull off as easily what they could against the ME. The FW190 did not have the dive problems the ME did. However if the P40 ever had height advantage on the FW it would have been a different story. A key reason the FW was so effective because of 4-20mm cannon and 2-30 caliber or 13 mm machine guns in the nose. Which means they had less target fixation and firing time on the target.

Many of the LW shoot downs were against loaded P40 FB. It was a war of attrition. Like Russia the terrain was fairly flat. Most of the fighting below 15000 ft.
The P40 was more tractible and cost effective than the P38 and P47. P51A would have done well too. The C/D models would have been excellent too.

Believe the P40 Win Loss ratio was about even. However not measured or discussed was their effectiveness as FB supporting the ground and naval operations.
But in every theater the P40 gave back what it got.

Peace
 

Hey welcome to the thread Dan

I'm still not done compiling (about halfway finished with my current attempt, tracking claims and losses by aircraft type and unit from Summer 1942 - Spring 1943) but you do see some combats between Fw 190 and the P-40, including one in February where 7 P-40's were shot down by Fw 190's for no losses, and a few others where the P-40's seem to have shot down 1 or 2 Fw 190's. As you said not many Fw 190's were in the region so though their arrival was anticipated with fear by the Allies, they didn't have as much impact as anticipated.

The Italian planes, mainly MC 200, MC 202, MC 205 and various Regianne models also played a substantial role.

How the P-40 fared depended on the tactics used and the subtype. The Commonwealth P-40C or E units (Tomahawk or Kittyhawk Mk I) seemed to do pretty poorly against Bf 109F or better, whereas the later model P-40's did much better, particularly the USAAF units. They seem to have done better than the P-38's and about the same as the Spit V. The most effective fighter on either side in the Med was clearly the Spit IX.

S
 
I think they did have some P-51A and A-36 in the region, the former mainly for Recon (which was really important - lots of planes got shot down trying to support or escort Tac-R missions). I agree more P-51A's would have been helpful. I think the main issue with P-38's and later on, P-47's was that they weren't so great performance / maneuverability wise down low, and they were also big so slightly easier targets for AAA.

AAA was the main problem for allied fighters by 1943. Particularly in Italy, German AAA was pretty hard core.

S
 
The Allison with the bigger Superchargers and Merlin 1 allowed the P40 to have more potential energy. Able to fight at higher and lower altitudes. As the war progressed. The ability to roll, turn at high speed and not get bent became more important! Where the plane stays within spec for the next sortie. Unlike the Corsair which after too many landing or high speed combat lost performance because the plane was bent and less aerodynamic. P38 had issues with its wide elevator getting damaged, poor roll and limited dive speed! The J and L fixed some of that and were great dog fighters but still cost twice as much to make and maintain than a P51 or P40. They were so much more versatile than any other US aircraft except for the Hellcat and FM2 wildcat.

The Germans got wise and dumped the Stuka for the FW190 for ground attack. Like the P40 had a better chance of getting home from a fight! The British used their fuel in the P51A and upped the boost so the plane would have 1700hp WEP available an do that for 20 minutes!
 
Dan Fahey said:
The Allison with the bigger Superchargers and Merlin 1 allowed the P40 to have more potential energy. Able to fight at higher and lower altitudes. As the war progressed. The ability to roll, turn at high speed and not get bent became more important!
Click to expand...

I'll get back to the bent thing in a moment. The big advantages for the P-40 in the Med seemed to be roll and turn, at low or high speed. Some pilots like the Canadian Ace James "Stocky" Edwards mentioned that while the P-40F/L was better for escort or fighter sweeps due to it's superior altitude performance (raising the effective ceiling to 20K feet) they preferred the P-40K to the F for dive bombing raids, because it apparently performed better down low.

I've seen different ratings for the max performance of each engine, with some estimates for the Allison on the P-40K as high as ~1,550 hp at optimum altitude @ around 8 - 10,000 feet at WEP (57" boost), though I don't know if that is accurate. I've also seen figures quoted by American pilots for as high as 60" boost on the P-40F / V-1650.

I think aircraft stats need to be reformed and one clear distinction which needs to be made is engine HP rated for military rated power, for WEP and even a 'next level' WEP if there is one (like methanol or NO2, or just overboosting past the redline if that was a common practice as it appeared to be on the P-40.)

They also really need to differentiate between subtypes more. A Spit I and a Spit XIV are really completely different aircraft, as is a P-40B and a P-40L or N.

From the kill / loss records in Mediterranean Air War it looks like the P-40L was the best model for the Med. it had a power to mass ratio of .17 which is better than a P-38 or a Hurricane (though still a lot worse than a Bf 109F or a Spit V)

Where the plane stays within spec for the next sortie. Unlike the Corsair which after too many landing or high speed combat lost performance because the plane was bent and less aerodynamic.
Click to expand...

I was not aware of this issue of wings / airframes getting permanently damaged or set by high G maneuvers. It's interesting and makes sense. Gives more nuance to the phrase "worn out airframe". Combat aircraft normally had pretty short lifespans anyway (and by Mid-war, American planes were being 'retired' to be used for training back in the States or wherever after a few months) but in some cases they didn't have the luxury.

P38 had issues with its wide elevator getting damaged, poor roll and limited dive speed! The J and L fixed some of that and were great dog fighters but still cost twice as much to make and maintain than a P51 or P40.
Click to expand...

The P-38 was clearly in trouble in the Med. A lot of issues to work out. The fact that it couldn't dive away from combat was a major problem, taking away it's best trait as a heavy fighter.In the Pacific they used to do "Boom and Zoom" attacks but not by diving, instead climbing away in a shallow high-speed climb. Simple trick but the A6M pilots had no answer for it. So long as they estimated the E states correctly it was effective.

P-40's could dive away from a fight but the superior acceleration of the Bf 109 and M.C. 202 meant that had to be done very carefully because they could be easily caught in the beginning of a dive. If they survived the first 30 seconds they had a pretty good chance of getting away. Based on the way the pilots talked about it on both sides it seemed to be pretty routine.

They were so much more versatile than any other US aircraft except for the Hellcat and FM2 wildcat.

The Germans got wise and dumped the Stuka for the FW190 for ground attack. Like the P40 had a better chance of getting home from a fight! !
Click to expand...

I think people tend to underestimate the value of the Stuka. It was certainly slow and vulnerable to fighters but they were still able to use them a lot in Russia and in the Med in 1943. For one thing, the Stuka could turn sharply, just like a P-40 could, and experienced pilots cuold take advantage of that to save their lives. But more importantly I think the main advantage of the Stuka was it's incredible accuracy. WWII bombers of any type had pretty abysmal accuracy, especially any kind of level bombers, and even more so on the tactical level where there was a need to actually hit tanks, artillery pieces and bunkers, not just set a city on fire or scatter a few bombs around a factory.

Fighter bombers were more accurate, at the expense of vulnerability, but dive-bombers were incredibly accurate. I just read an anecdote in Black Cross / Red Star where Stukas knocked out 40 Russian tanks in a single day in 1942. That has real impact on a battle, and it's better than what could be done with rockets usually.

The other solution was the "heavy strafer" - cannon armed aircraft with extra armor protection and defensive guns to help with survival in ground attack missions (always limited help in reality). The Hurri IID, the Ju-87 G, the Il2 and the HS 129 and the B-25 with the 75mm gun and so on. Even aircraft armed with "just" 20mm cannon could slaughter more lightly armored vehicles and disable tanks. Beaufighters, the Fw 190F and so on could also wreak havoc even without their bombs.

But I think the reason the Ju 87 stuck in that niche so long is that the Germans weren't able to come up with another 'true' dive bomber with similiar capabilities. They had "semi" dive bombing capability (i.e. a 45 degree dive) with the Ju 88 and the fighter-bombers, but that just didn't net the same kind of results.

S
 
For what its wi=orth I took three different months for different reasons and compared losses. Note I concentrated on combat loses in the air, flak losses removed, engine failures (unless after combat) removed

October 1941 chosen as the Luftwaffe arrived in numbers and the Allied forces only had the Hurricane and the Tomahawk
Allied losses
13 Tomahawks
11 Hurricanes
2 Marylands
3 Blenheim's

Axis Losses
1 Me109F (shot down by return gunfire from a Maryland)
1 x 109E
1 x Ju87

No doubt that the 109F was totally dominant

January 1942 chosen as the Kittyhawk was in widespread service
Allied Losses
20 x Hurricanes
9 x Tomahawk
18 x Kittyhawk
1 x Blenheim

Axis Losses
Italian
3 x Ju87
4 x MC 200
2 x CR42

German Losses
4 x Me109F
3 x Me110
4 x Ju88
1 x Ju52
3 x Ju87

I believe that this shows that the 109F was still totally dominant over the P40 of all types

October 1942 chose as this is when the Spitfires are available in numbers to support the P40's and Hurricanes
Allied Losses
39 x Kittyhawks
8 x Spitfires (1 a PR version)
17 x Hurricanes
3 x Tomahawks
1 x B25

Axis Losses
18 x MC 202
33 x Me109 F/G
2 x Me109E
9 x Ju87

This shows I believe that the arrival of the Spitfire made a big difference to the losses forcing the Germans to less aggressive tactics giving the P40's a better chance. Note that the USAAF involvement in this month was very small
 
Glider said:
I believe that this shows that the 109F was still totally dominant over the P40 of all types
Click to expand...

Over the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk Mk 1, perhaps - though most of those shot down were doing dive-bombing missions, most of the losses were from the SAAF units and there were a variety of other issues (the formations they were using and so on). You shouldn't be so hasty to "ASSUME". But lets put that aside for a moment and look at October..


Your comment that the "USAAF involvement in this month was very small" is interesting, because I already posted two incidents involving USAAF fighters - 57 FG P-40Fs- in that very same month, which on those two days accounted for 1/3 of the actual Bf 109 casualties for the month; ,i.e. six of them, per MAW.

Oct 13 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs escorting SAAF Kittyhawk Is vs. LW Bf 109Fs) 3 Bf 109's / 1 P-40 lost.
Oct 27 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs escorting RAF Hurricanes vs Lw Bf 109Fs) 3 Bf 109's lost / 0 P-40s lost.*

So I wouldn't discount them entirely. Furthermore, by October 1942 in contrast with January of that same year, later model P-40s were also available to the DAF, specifically starting in June 1942, 260 RAF and 3 RAAF received P-40F (Kittyhawk II), and 112 and 250 RAF, and 450 RAAF received Kittyhawk III (P-40K/M). These had a better loss rate against the Bf 109s.

Maybe we should take a deeper dive into October and maybe a couple of other months.

S
 
Last edited:
Ok I crunched some more numbers, not finished and I was adding this stuff up late at night (it's 10 till midnight here) so forgive me if I made any arithmetic errors.

but I pulled the data I had on October from MAW II. Went through each day. My numbers are similar to Glider but slightly different.

I made a chart for each day which I will upload here when I figure out a relatively simple way to do it. These were my "rules" in compiling data.
  • Aircraft which were FTR, MIA, "Shot down", "Bailed Out", or crash / force landed with 60% or more damage counted as shot down. Less than 60% were counted as 'crash landed'.
  • Aircraft which were able to return to base and land without crashing were counted as 'damaged', and were not included in the totals on victory / losses.
  • Did not count aircraft lost by collision with friendly aircraft, accident or Flak
  • Ignored claims for 'probable' or 'damaged' unless there is a corresponding loss otherwise unaccounted for (i.e. He 111 shot down Oct 14 when Ju 88 claimed damaged by Hurricanes with no other Allied claims on that day, was attributed to the Hurricanes)
  • Did not count losses with no corresponding claims (i.e. a MC 202 on Oct 13 'failed to return' but no DAF claims were made that day, so it was ignored)
It's worth pointing out that the last couple of weeks of October 1942 saw the beginning of the Battle of El Alamein, which is why the fighting was getting so intense.

CASUALTIES
Bf 109 - 34 shot down, 7 crash landed (I counted 3 Bf 109E, about 10 G, and the rest F)
MC 202 - 10 shot down, 8 crash landed
Cr 42 - 6 shot down, 4 crash landed

He 111 - 1
Ju 87 - 13
Ju 88 - 1
Ju 52 -3

Total fighters lost - 44 shot down, 19 crash landed
Total aircraft lost - 62 shot down, 19 crash landed

Spit V - 10 shot down, 1 crash landed
Spit IV (Recon) -1 shot down
US P-40F -3 shot down, 3 crash landed
Kittyhawk II* -7 shot down, 1 crash landed
Kittyhawk III** -13 shot down, 2 crash landed
Kittyhawk I -13 shot down, 5 crash landed
Tomahawk -3 shot down, 1 crash landed
Hurricane*** -17 shot down, 2 crash landed

A-20 / Boston -4 Shot down
B-25 -1 Shot down
Bisley - 1 Shot down

(Total P-40) - 39 shot down, 14 crash landed
Total fighters lost - 67 shot down, 17 crash landed
Total aircraft lost - 73 shot down, 17 crash landed

* RAF version of P-40F or P-40L
** RAF version of P-40K or M (I think mostly K)
*** these seemed to be all Hurricane IIc

Neither side seems to have lost a lot of bombers at this point (aside from Stukas), and I think that is because the most effective bombers in this Theater (aside from Stukas) in Oct 1942 were fighter bombers, at least for the allies. Basically the allies were using older model Kittyhakws and Hurricanes to do their bombing and the Luftwaffe were using mostly Stukas plus Ju 88's, Bf 109E, Cr 42 and MC 200.

The Germans / Italians came out slightly ahead on air-to-air combat during this month but they lost a lot more aircraft on the ground to bombing and strafing. A lot of the fights were taking place over their airfields.

CLAIMS
Total Claims by Spitfires - 31.5 Bf 109, 3 MC 202,1 1 Ju 52
Total Claims by RAF P-40's - 35.5 Bf 109, 11 MC 202, 9 Ju 87, 1 Ju 88, 1 Ju 52
Total Claims by US P-40's - 18 Bf 109, 7 MC 202, 4 Cr 42
Total Claims by Hurricanes - 3 Bf 109, 1 Cr 42, 7 Ju 87, 1 Ju 88

Total claims by P-40's 53.5
Total claims by allied fighters 85 (maybe somebody can figure out the overclaiming ratio I'm too tired)
Most of the RAF P-40 claims against bombers were by the Kittyhawk I's and Tomahawks.

I didn't count all the Luftwaffe and Regia claims yet but they are very high, I think overclaiming more than the DAF was. I'll try to add those up tomorrow.

But from these numbers, I think we can conclude that the Spitfires did not shoot down most of the German & Italian fighters, also it's clear that the US fighters did play an important role that month, if not as much as they would later on.

Further breaking down the RAF P-40's,:

Total claims by Kittyhawk II - 9
Total claims by Kittyhawk III -15.5
Total claims by Kittyhawk I -8
Total claims by Tomahawk- 3
Total claims by late model P-40's (including US P-40F) 32.5
Total claims by early model P-40's (P-40E and C) 11

I'm pointing this out because I believe the earlier model P-40s were by this point a step behind the Bf 109F or G, or the MC 202. Bu the later model P-40s were basically equal, at least in terms of outcomes.

It's worth noting that I believe by this point all of the early model P-40s were SAAF. (I'd have to double check that to be certain.) They seemed to have the short end of the stick when it came to planes.

My interpretation of the charts is that the Hurricanes and early model P-40's were doing the dirty work and suffering badly as a result, strafing and attacking the enemy bombers, while the later model P-40's, especially the US 57 FG P-40Fand Kittyhawk II took on the enemy fighters, (along with the Spitfires - but Spitfires weren't in action every day of the month, or at least, they only made claims on half of the days). Kittyhawk III / P-40K were used for fighter bomber missions more but were also taking on the Bf 109s at every opportunity, covering for the Hurricanes and Kittyhawk I's, and doing damage to the Bf 109s. They also seemed to get into fights with the MC202 more often than the other types.

Finally (for now), on each day's action, the Germans reported what aircraft type shot down their lost planes, if they could. So I went through and counted these for October 1942.

Number of times German records reported their aircraft as "Shot down by P-40" or "After combat with P-40" etc., 11
Number of times German records mention being shot down by Spitfires 2
Number of times German records mention being shot down by Hurricanes 1

Number of days US P-40 pilots (all from 57th Fighter Group) made claims in October 1942: 9
Number of days Spitfire pilots made claims in October 1942 : 15
Number of days RAF / Commonwealth P-40 pilots made claims: 16
Number of days Hurricane pilots made claims : 4
Number of days P-40's altogether made claims: 25

All in all, I would say that this data refutes the notion suggested by Glider that the Spits were bearing the brunt of the Luftwaffe / Axis fighters during Oct 1942. The Spits took fewer losses, but they were only "in the action" (making claims) half the time.

When I get a chance I'll upload my charts and I think you'll see that the late model P-40s were holding their own pretty well. I also think it's clear that the Axis side actually overclaimed a lot more.

More to come....

S
 
Last edited:
Here's a couple of curious Curtiss related factoids..

When the FW 190 1st made its combat debut against intruding Spitfires, the impressed RAF chaps
mis-reported them as 'Curtiss Hawks', & were frankly amazed that the 'beastly Hun' had got them going so hard!

&, a bit later on, when intruding FW 190 pilots were hounded & harried - back to France by the new Typhoon,
they duly mis-reported them as 'Curtiss Tomahawks' & expressed incredulity that the 'Englander schwein'
had got them going so hard!
 
While the Typhoon first had stripes put on it because in the air it looks like an FW 190.
 
pbehn said:
While the Typhoon first had stripes put on it because in the air it looks like an FW 190.
Click to expand...
Aircraft mis-identification was chronic; even the P-38, probably the most distinctive aircraft, especially from above or below, was fired on by same-side gunners. Of course, there is much less difference from the front, which is when AAA gunners are going to start shooting.
 
Relevant to the other discussion, Allied pilots routinely misidentified Bf 109 as MC 202 and vice versa.

When the later model P-40s came out starting in mid-1942, German and Italian pilots noting their different shape (they were about 3 feet longer and the Merlin engined ones lacked a supercharger scoop on the top of the nose) typically misidentified them as either P-46 or P-39. Shores points this out over and over, and it's one of the ways you can separate out where the Germans were fighting the later model P-40s vs the earlier. In 1942 they almost always identified the American P-40Fs in particular as P-46. The Americans were also the first to consistently fly with the finger-four / two pairs formations which also probably made them seem different.

Actual P-39s were so unusual for allied AAA gunners that they almost always took "friendly fire" casualties when operating over land. They mostly did coastal / maritime patrol over the Med though and rarely took part in the regular tactical / land war fighting.
 
Last edited:
What I said was the Spitfire forced the Germans to be less aggressive not that they bore the brunt of the fighting. They couldn't assume that they had the height advantage which they clearly did before the arrival of the Spitfire. This in turn reduced the aircraft able to attack the other aircraft. The Spitfire couldn't bear the brunt of the fighting as initially there were too few of them.
My stats are wrong, as for some reason I stopped at the 27th, please don't ask me why, no idea
 
Last edited:

I forgive you for the stats- I'm sure I made mistakes too.

But i disagree with your premise. The Spits were only even flying on 15 days during that month, vs 25 days for the P-40s, and were not in the same actions. They did not prevent the Bf 109s from attacking from above, and they were not (usually) protecting P-40s. When they did, they were flying cover for the older models. On many days they did fly, they didn't file claims for fighters shot down and were flying in different areas. It's a myth - one of the long lasting Tropes in fact, that Spits had to fly top cover for P-40's in the Med to protect them from Bf 109s. What actually happened was that late model P-40s flew escorts for Hurricanes and older model P-40s.

Spits actually couldn't escort P-40s on a lot of missions because of their range limitation. At least so far in MAW there are no Spit VIII that I noticed and the other types just didn't have the range to reach the more distant targets. So while I think the Spits did help, for example, in intercepting German attempts to bomb Allied airfields, and as shorter range escorts, I believe it's inaccurate to suggest they were decisive in the Luftwaffe defeat. The P-40s were in fact still bearing the brunt of the fighting well into 1943.

By contrast, the Hurricanes couldn't fly raids unescorted and the P-39s couldn't conduct ground attack missions even with a heavy escort without suffering catastrophic losses.

I do think what you did though is a good idea, posting stats for a specific time period. I'm going to try to find another couple of good months, maybe March 1943. It's tricky to separate out what happened (trickier than Oct 42) because so many other aircraft types are involved. But worth taking a stab at.

The more you look at MAW I think you'll realize what I'm saying is correct - the later model P-40s were able to operate on their own, without fear of massive casualties, and often flew cover for the other fighters. P-40F/L even flew cover for P-40Ks pretty routinely, because the P-40F/L had the higher ceiling. The 20,000' ceiling of the Merlin-engined P-40s was apparently sufficient in the Theater because even the Luftwaffe fighters weren't usually flying higher than that, except when dealing with the B-24s, and in those raids the escorts were P-38s.

S.
 
 
This is what RAF BoB veteran, Spitfire ace & hugely experienced ( 550+ op sorties) combat fighter pilot
Bob Spurdle had to say about the P-40...

"The Kittyhawks were something else. They had Allison engines which ran very smoothly.
They were sturdy, well-made machines with the formidable fire power of six 0.5in M-G's.
They had electric trim tabs & a natty little lock-up compartment to carry personal gear around in.

They had the flying characteristics of a brick."

Ol' Bob was a straight-shooting Kiwi, & used his P-40 well, to destroy a couple of Zeros over the Soloman Is,
but he was annoyed by being 'carpeted by the boss' - after being accused by leader of a USAAF B-24
outfit - of the 'crime of abandoning his close escort duties', on a bombing mission..

He angrily retorted to his C.O. - when told he'd 'left the bombers';

"Left them? Left them? The bastards left us!"

& Bob duly explained the situation:

"At over 20,000ft, a B-24, having dropped its bombs, could climb away from a Kittyhawk...
& this is exactly what happened."
 
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