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.
Schweik said:
Shortround6 I think this is a good example of not applying your considerable knowledge to the right data and therefore reaching (or reinforcing) an inaccurate conclusion. You are making several assumptions here which are incorrect.
Click to expand...

How about you read what I wrote again, and quit making assumptions of your own.

I was replying to another poster who "claimed" "If the P40 out turned a Italian Fighter. It was about a 1000 lb lighter because they used a good half of their fuel to travel and attack the Italian bases. The Italian Fighters were filled with fuel to intercept. So weighs would have been similar.

This poster was not you. But the fact/s remain that this is not true.
A P-40E (or F) only held 888 pounds of fuel in the internal tanks and 312lbs in the 52 gallon external. 1200 lbs total. 1000lbs lighter due to fuel burn of 1/2 the fuel simply doesn't come close to adding up.


Your wing loading comparison seems to be off- the P-40E had a better wing loading from the start.
Click to expand...

Please show (quote) were I said it didn't?




Depends on your definition of considerably doesn't it?

Again, the poster I was responding to said 1000lbs lighter and I was trying to give him at least some benefit of the doubt. Since the P-40 didn't hold 1000lbs of fuel inside I went with the 1200lb total including the 52 gallon external tank and used (as he claimed) 1/2 half or 600lbs.

Guess what, 8280lbs + 366lbs (external tank and fittings) = 8646lbs - 640lbs (1/2 total fuel and weight of tank) = 8006lbs/ 236 sq ft =33.92 lbs per sq ft.

Maybe in your world 33.92lbs/sq/ft is "considerably lower" than 35.09 but my back of the envelope calculation says it is 96.6%

Where is this hypothetical Italian fighter base relative to the hypothetical American base?
Click to expand...

Does it matter?? The other poster had the P-40s over the Italian base with 200lbs of fuel on board (assuming they started with 52 gallon drop tank)worst case.
DO you really think the P-40 could dogfight, exit, fly back to own base and land on 200lbs of fuel (33.3 gallons) Best case they had 600lbs (1.2 fuel instead of the absurd 1000lbs used in which case the fuel is a non-issue but then the wing loading doesn't look quite so good.
 


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Rolls-Royce_Merlin.pdf

Merlin 25: Same as Merlin 24, but with reverse coo]ant flow.
Merlin 28,29,31,33, 38,224,225: Similar to Merlin 24 built by Packard Motor Car Company in the United States of America.
Click to expand...

+14psi (58.4inHg MAP)/+16psi (62.5inHg MAP) boost permitted on 100 octane fuel in Lancasters

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Merlin_28_Operational_Limitations.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Merlin_28_Operational_Limitations_10sept42.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Merlin_28_13april43.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Lancaster/Rating_Certificate_Merlin_28_29_31.pdf
 
Weight of a gallon of Gasoline is 6.3 lbs per gallon.
100 gallons, 630 lbs., 200 gallon 1260 lbs.

Most P40 carried about 250 gallons internally.
So about 1545 lbs of fuel.
Plus what ever was in the Auxillary Tank.
Some had less but you get the point.
 


'Similar to' doesn't apparently mean the same thing as the same HP.

According to this

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Aircraft_Engines_of_the_World_Packard_Merlin.pdf

V-1650-1 ratings were

1,300 @ 54 Hg / sea level (takeoff)
1,240 / 11,500 ft (military)
1,120 hp / 18,000 ft (military)

So it's actually similar to the Merlin 24 at altitude but much lower HP for takeoff and lower down. That PDF doesn't show WEP power but like I said, that is closer to ~1450 (@60") than anything near 1,700,, at least as far as I know.

Like I said, if you find anything specifically to do with V-1650-1 / Merlin 28 being boosted to 80" I'd love to see it. Would turn the P-40F/L into a very impressive beast indeed.


S
 
Last edited:
V-1650-1 had same construction, same supercharger and same supercharger gearing as the 24.

80inHg MAP was only with 100/150 fuel. Which only became available in 1944 (?).
 

Actually the US figured aviation gas at about 6lbs per gallon. At least in every pilots manual I have read so far.

Like the one for the P-40D P-40E.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-40d-e-pdf.46566/

where 120 gallons is 720lbs
25.5 gallons is 153 lbs

and 52 gallons in the drop tank is 312 lbs.

No production P-40 carried even 200 gallons of fuel internal let alone 250 gallons.

Most of the ones that had self-sealing tanks didn't even carry 150 gallons.

The F and L were supposed to carry a bit over 150 gallons but the manual doesn't agree with itself.

https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/p-40f_foi-pdf.69920/

Fuel capacities on the fuel system diagram don't quite match the fuel capacities on the weight and balance chart.

and the P-40F & L are shown as carrying 1254lbs of fuel including the 52 gallon drop tank.

Your source for the P-40 with 250 gallons of internal fuel please?
 
Shortround6 said:
and the P-40F & L are shown as carrying 1254lbs of fuel including the 52 gallon drop tank.

Your source for the P-40 with 250 gallons of internal fuel please?
Click to expand...

Ok so half fuel is ~500- 600 lb less (rather than 1,000 lbs), say 500 to give a little margin to fight and get home... that is still a pretty big difference when it comes to performance. Same as a bomb... almost equivalent of a second crew position or two more guns.

I can't speak for the other guy but I think that is the point he was making.

This is something to think about for the A6M as well - after flying 500 miles they would be a lot lighter and perform even better. Same for a P-51 needless to say.

And of course, the Bf 109 and MC 202 (and the Spit and Hurricane) will also be flying lighter especially when flying over an enemy base, just not by quite as much of a margin.

S
 
It might be nice if we tried to make our points with a little less fiction.

I am not particularly interested in winning bar bets or arguing about the digits to the right hand side of the decimal point.
But 250 gallon P-40s are a bit much.

I Brought up the BoB Spitfire and 109 because we have anecdotes and arguments about planes with rather different wing loadings (Spit was about 75% of the 109 and no the slats didn't make up the difference) and between the MC 202 and the P-40 the difference in wing loading was in single digits. I am not saying the MC 202 could outturn a P-40 with everything being equal, just that they were pretty close and other things may have made the difference in any particular fight.
As for the P-40F, according the weights in the manual it had a wing loading of 37.5lbs sq ft with full internal fuel, ammo and extra radio receiver. with front wing tank empty, 235 rounds per gun and single radio receiver and transmitter it's wing loading was 36lb sq ft.
 

I agree the wing loadings look close, but it's also true that as I noted, the Anglo-American pilots apparently took it for granted that they could out-turn Bf 109s and MC 202s, in fact specifically with the USAAF squadrons they counted on it to such an extent that they would attack enemy units with superior numbers or for example, strafe enemy aircraft on the runway in between attacks, as in the example I quoted upthread.

Russian pilots like Golodnikov said this too - if you saw them coming they couldn't get you.

Earlier RAF / Commonwealth pilots flying P-40Es against Bf109Fs seemed a lot less sanguine about the whole experience. To be frank many of them were basically terrified of the Luftwaffe but I think that is in part due to poor tactics they were using (flying extra low, not using wingmen / pairs, using defensive circles and so on) and in part due to less performance of the E vs. the later models.


Well, first of all, what was in the manual wasn't necessary what they were flying with. They actually threw out any and everything they could to lighten them particularly in the Med, though meanwhile new equipment was also being added all the time too. And as a result, many different weights were quoted for the P-40F (some versions even being 20+ inches longer than the others). For example I have two books sitting on my desk right now showing the P-40F "Loaded Weight"* as 8,480 lbs and 8,069 lbs respectively. These are both with six guns by the way (more on that in a second). The heavier of those two weights (8,480 lbs) makes for a wing loading of 35.2 lbs / ft ² which is still (slightly) less than the MC 202. At the lower weight it's more like the P-40L around 33-34.

And this is with 6 guns. In the field we know that many pilots took out a pair of guns and some like the 325th FG Ace Robert Baseler took out two pairs for some missions. I think this was more for speed than turning ability (which they seemed to take for granted) but who knows.

I suspect flaps may have had something to do with it. Or wing shape or wing span. I don't know.

*Not to be confused with max gross weight which may include multiple bombs and external fuel tanks and so on.

S
 
Look at the manuals and look at the weight break downs in "America's Hundred Thousand". A P-40F went just under 6500lbs empty. assuming that it weighed what the specifications said. Many didn't, the example used in AHT was 109lb OVER the Guarantee weight. This is fairly normal, most planes did vary a few percent from lightest to heaviest in a production batch. However there wasn't a whole lot of "stuff" to throw out.

Empty in this case doesn't include guns but does include armor and radios. The oxygen system was a whopping 15lbs.

They got the L's down a bit in weight by throwing out such unnecessary "stuff" as the forward fuel tank. Saved about 125lbs of tank and sealing. Of course you only had 120 US gallons of fuel internal but what the heck, that saved another 168lbs of loaded weight. Most Ls only had four guns.

I would note that the manual calls for a 200lb pilot and AHT calls for a 180lb pilot
The radio was either a SCR-522A transmitter and receiver OR an SCR-274-N transmitter and receiver AND an SCR-5515A and/or the SCR-535 receiver.

I am guessing that the SCR-535 was actually the IFF equipment as a demolition charge and switch was provided to destroy the SCR-535 to prevent it from falling into enemy hands. Apparently the other radio equipment was NOT secret.

You can't just yank the BP glass on the later P-40Fs and the Ls as the BP glass was actually the windscreen, it was not mounted behind (or in front of) any glass or plexiglass that would seal the cockpit.

You are running out of stuff to yank out.

Guns and ammo were the only real options and yanking a pair of .50 cal guns was worth about 150-160lbs and the ammo to go with them (at 235rpg) was 130-140lbs.
Please note this was done on the production line with most of the Ls along with yanking (not installing) the forward fuel tank. This got the gross (clean) weight of the P-40L down to 8120lbs (give or take) and the likelihood of getting a P-40F much below that in the field (using similar modifications) is pretty slim.

The manual called for 7027lb "basic" or empty equipped. No pilot, fuel, oil or ammo but 6 guns. having a gross weight of 8,069 lbs with 6 guns calls for a skinny pilot, less than full fuel and less than "normal" (let alone full) ammo. Or a typo?
Manual calls for 135lbs of oil (for 720lbs of fuel) with another 23lbs of fuel for all internal tanks full.

Lets assume we can "cut" 45lbs from the "F" by getting rid of the oxygen, the mooring kt and tool kit. etc. The we will yank two of the guns (475lbs/6 times=180lbs roundup) 180lbs for a 'basic weight' of 6802lbs, add a skinny 170lb pilot (with parachute) and 720lbs of fuel (didn't fill front wing tank) and we will only put in 120lbs of oil. Gee we are up to 7812lbs and we haven't put any ammo in the plane. 200rpg of .50 cal ammo for four guns is 240lbs, or 8052lbs gross for this combo. See weight of the P-40L.
 
Shortround6 said:
Look at the manuals and look at the weight break downs in "America's Hundred Thousand". A P-40F went just under 6500lbs empty. assuming that it weighed what the specifications said.
Click to expand...

~6500 empty for the six gun configuration matches most of my sources too, so we are in sync there at least.

The rest of that post though is I think a good example of a bunch of speculation (which is fine, nothing wrong with speculating) but then combined with assuming that we know everything they could or did take out of a P-40 to lighten it, in yet another vigorous effort to prove wartime sources incorrect.

In History research I tend to believe the primary source data unless I have a good reason not to. Others tend to disbelieve them. It doesn't matter that much ultimately because as more data points arrive the picture gradually becomes clearer and always changes. This is the nature of history.

Your effort here seems to be largely for naught though simply because even a very good imagination usually fails to think of everything in a machine as complex as a fighter plane.


Ok for example. In this May 1942 test of a P-40F (AC No 41-13601) to evaluate cruise speed with an external fuel tank, the weight with a 75 gallon fuel tank was reported as 8734 lbs. They specifically mention by the way this included 506 lbs of ammunition which I assume is a full load. If you subtract the external fuel tank (since this fuel would be burned on the way to the target and the tank typically jettisoned before combat) that is 450 lbs (using your 6 lb per gallon ratio, though how gas gets lighter by 0.3 lbs is beyond me) which puts the weight at an even 8284, or roughly mid-way between the two figures I originally posted above for the P-40F. And this is clearly a fully loaded aircraft with six guns. At that weight the wing loading is 35.11 which is still lower than an MC 202.

If you take out two guns incidentally that does put the weight at the standard Loaded Weight for a P-40L of just about 8,000 lbs. But I think they could and did get it lower than that if they wanted to (not all pilots did).

This document for example also notes that the "wing bomb racks" were installed. I don't know how much a pair of those weighed (50 lbs? 100?) but wing bomb racks are precisely the kind of thing you would remove for a fighter sweep, armed reconnaissance, or escort mission and it's a good example of something you missed.

The official Loaded Weight for the P-40L in fact represents the same field stripping that was already being done to P-40Fs in North Africa, they just did most of it in the factory before the plane was delivered, saving the mechanics some time. I know that in addition to two guns and some ammo, and the forward fuel tanks, they also removed some pieces of armor plate forward of the cockpit (I think protecting the radiator) and reduced some of the radio gear (radio sets being rather heavy and bulky in 1942). Some planes were shipped with two radios, one for a squadron frequency and one for longer range - the latter were usually just put on the squadron leaders aircraft.

Lets again not forget that some P-40Fs were 20" longer than others, which also made a difference!

I don't know how well the IFF gear worked in WW2 or if they kept or not. I believe they also had radio direction finder (RDF) gear on some planes though I don't know which ones or precisely when that started. This would mostly be used when flying long distances over water such as during action against Sardania, Sicily, etc. Other optional gear included the dinghy and other water survival gear and some desert survival stuff including a couple of gallons of water. Pilots also typically stowed a bag of stuff in the little cargo hatch behind the cockpit. My conclusion is perhaps not surprisingly, I do not assume your calculations trump what all the books say, though admittedly the latter do vary in the numbers they report. Some of this variance is attributable to reporting either empty, loaded, or 'max gross' / overload weight. Some is different variants, and some is weight as in the field (stripped) while some is per factory weight or by the manual.

It is also true as I mentioned previously, at least one Italian pilot reported that the wing guns were often removed from the MC 202 which would lighten them by probably at least ~250 - 300 lbs or more. It's hard to know exactly how much weight they could strip from those as well. As a general rule, when going against enemy fighters you needed less firepower and wanted as little weight as possible - for the P-40s mainly for speed and climb not so much turning ability, but for the MC 202 presumably more for turn and roll.

The anti-fighter role was usually the mission for DAF P-40Fs and P-40Ls, at least during several extended periods (battle of El Alamein and Mareth Line, final battles in Tunisia El Guettar etc., Pantelleria / Lampedusa, Invasion of Sicily, fighter sweeps over Sardania, Invasion of Italy and the battle of Anzio) whereas RAF Kittyhawk I and Hurricane squadrons, and USAAF squadrons flying P-40K variants did more of the ground attack missions. The five USAAF Fighter Groups equipped with P-40F/Ls (57th FG, 325th, 324th, 79th and 33rd FG) mostly claimed Bf 109 and MC 202 'kills' in their tallies, whereas RAF groups claimed more Stukas and Ju 88s etc. though still a lot of fighters.

When Axis air activity subsided for a while and they were doing FB / strafing raids for extended periods (as did also happen with the P-40F/L), or during those fairly rare periods when the Axis was flying a lot of medium bomber raids and they needed to shoot down bombers (this happened against their bases and also when convoys were going by), they tended to put more guns & ammo and other (navigation and survival etc.) gear back into the plane. Strafing or shooting down bombers required more guns and weight didn't matter as much.

S
 
Last edited:

I deal with Fuel a lot in race cars for Drag Racing.
I see 6 lbs weight of fuel for aircraft, boats and cars used a lot.
Just easier to use as a quick multiplier.

Thought the P-40 carried as much as 250 gallons of internal fuel in the the two fuselage tanks.
Definitely off a 100 gallons.

D
 

Seems there is quite a bit of supposition and imagination going on in your post.

Please look at the manuals posted. They are a primary source although not infallible.
There is a major problem with the WEP power in the engine chart for instance.

Baggage, life rafts, and assorted extras have to be accounted for somehow.
In the weight and balance there is a line for baggage. It is blank, if you are carrying baggage fill in the amount carried.
Life rafts (for navy fighters) might come under equipment or furnishings or some other catagory. Life rafts for army planes may have to added into the weight when fitted. As would dessert survival equipment or other things that were location specific.

Wartime letters or accounts might very well be accurate to the best knowledge of the writer. But without either actually weighing the stuff coming out or running the "stripped" aircraft across a large scale they are estimating weight reduction.

going back the "manual" armor in a P-40F consisted of.
A 3/8in non magnetic plate mounted forward of the instrument panel at station No 2.
A 5/16in plate mounted forward off and completely covering the bulkhead at station no 5
A 5/16in plate mounted on the forward side of the above plate, immediately aft of the pilots headrest.

aside from the Bulletproof windscreen no other armor or protection is listed. (self sealing fuel takes excepted).

Some P-40F did dispense with certain items as the production continued, like glycol spray for the Windscreen. (de-icer?) and the emergency hydraulic system (which worked on the main landing gear only, not on the flaps or tail wheel). So yes perhap some enterprising souls did rip a few things out of the earlier P-40Fs.

As far as the fuel weight goes, I have no certain knowledge of why modern car fuel weighs more than old Av-gas. But Modern car fuel may not be made from the same base stocks or have the mix of aromatics (if any) or meet a number of the same specifications as old Av gas did.
And BTW, even in WW II there was a difference in the specifications for 80 octane "motor" fuel and 80 octane "Av-gas" (used in trainers/light transports) as far as vapor pressures, residue, particles/precipitation and other things.

As far as the the .3 pounds being dropped to make it easy to multiply/round off???

Think about that one long and hard.

B-17 carried 1712 gallons or 10,400lbs according to one chart in it's manual. or 6.0747 pounds per gallon. If the fuel weighed 6.3 pounds per gallon they were off by .225 lbs per gallon or 385lbs for that fuel load. Now try the 2812 gallons/16,900lb load. Being "off" by over 800lbs is not what you want just to make it a bit easier to do the math.
 
The manual is fine - it is indeed a primary source, but it's not the last word - we know for example they did not limit themselves to 54" Hg for WEP, right?

Just to be clear, when I'm talking about the exact, specific weight of an aircraft I'm not talking about letters home from pilots or postwar interviews or their personal opinions. I have quoted / transcribed those and will continue to do so, but in reference to other more subjective things (like if they could out-turn a Bf 109 or an MC 202, or if they used overboosting or flaps in combat).

When I am talking about something concrete and objective like the weight of the aircraft or the wing-loading, I am drawing from sources like the wartime document I already linked above, and a stack of books I have here on my desk, nor wartime letters or the opinions of Aces. I think that should be obvious.

For example in 'The Curtiss Hawks' (Wolverine Press, 1972. Library of Congress No. 79-173429), on page 249, it mentions that the P-40L-1 (50 produced) had 'some armor eliminated'. For the P-40L -10 (148 delivered) it gets more specific - "armor removed from coolant tank".

Curtiss P-40, snub nosed Kittyhawks and Warhawks (Osprey 2013) says the same thing - Coolant tank armor removed from P-40L-10 onward

Curtiss P-40 from 1939 to 1945 (Planes and Pilots 3 - ISBN 2-913903-47-9.) says the P-40L-5 had 448 lbs of weight removed including armor, forward fuel tanks, two guns and reduced ammunition (from 280 to 200 rounds per gun).

The dinghy and other survival gear I mentioned were all standard at least for some missions, in the Desert - as they were frequently flying over the Med.

The bomb shackles, extra radio(s), IFF system* and other gear you mentioned like auxiliary hydraulic system etc., could be and were removed. As were (typically) one pair of wing guns.

Do you contest the weight listed in the WWIIaircraftperformance document I linked upthread? Because I think that makes the point just fine.

* Which apparently didn't work very well based on what I've been reading and only affected radar which was generally lacking in North Africa)

S
 
Last edited:
Ok so in an attempt to raise the signal to noise ratio of the thread a little, here is the pilot anecdote that I had promised earlier. This is from the same hotly contested day of March 24, 1943, in which (per Shores MAW Vol III) the American P-40 pilots claimed 10 bf 109s (and US Spitfire pilots claimed 3), and lost 1 P-40 which belly landed (piloted by Robert Kantner who survived, as described below), the Germans lost 7 Bf109Gs.

This is from the Osprey book "P-40 Warhawk Aces of the MTO", page 34 from the top:

"Col Momyer [Ace and CO of the 33rd FG] immediately threw his P-40s back into the fight, scheduling three missions on 24 March - the 33rd FG's first full day at Sbeitla. The morning mission was an escort for B-25s attacking an enemy airstrip near Djebal Tebeta. A gaggle of Bf 109s hurredly took off from the strip as the formation approached the target, and Capt. John Bradley, who was leading the escort, and Capt Charles Duncan broke away for a diving attack as the enemy fighters were still climbing. Bradley knocked down one of the attackers before the P-40s rejoined the formation.

The Bf 109s kept coming however, eventually following the P-40s back to Sbeitla, but losing three of their own to Lts Lassiter Thompson, Johnnie Haselby and Harold Wilson along the way. [Capt. Charles ] Duncan takes up the story as the P-40s reached Sbeitla:

"They followed us back to Sbeitla and disrupted our landing. In the middle of things, Lt Robert Kantner (my wingman) and I started to land because of low fuel. Kantner's coolant was shot out and he bellied in. On my landing roll I looked back to see a '109 coming down the runway intent on putting me out of commission. I went around, flaps and all, turning and 'washing clothes' (pushing the stick every which way and kicking rudder to throw him off). No hits. I decided to slow up and wait for a while.

'I then saw an Me-109 on the tail of what turned out to be John Bradley's P-40. I was 90 degrees to their flight path, so I pointed my nose at Bradley, and somewhat above, with the intent of scaring off the '109 with my tracers. I had little chance of hitting the '109, and I know I had no chance of hitting Bradley with no lead. I fired a bunch of rounds and the '109 broke off.

'Now, really low on fuel, I climbed to about 5,000 ft to throttle back and wait things out. Next I observed a '109 being chased in a climb by two P-40s. The P-40s didn't have enough power or speed to close on the '109, the pilot of which apparently thought he was in no danger. When almost on top of the '109 I fired - but only two or three rounds because that was all I had left. A puff of smoke came from the '109 as he was hit, and his reflexes apparently caused him to pull his throttle to off. I had a time "S-ing" to keep from overrunning him, and he glided in and crashed strait ahead. An engineering unit situated near to where the aircraft crashed, notified our group that the top of the pilots head had been blown off.'

Later that morning of 24 March, the 59th FS [of 33rd Fighter Group] flew a sweep over Djebal ebeta and encountered opposition over the target."

After that it's the part I mentioned earlier where they described out-turning the 109s.

The German pilot who got the top of his head blown off was either Lt Ferdinannd Jahn of 9./JG 77 (listed as 'shot down by a P-40' and KiA), or one of the three MIA pilots from - Hans Wendt from 5 / JG 53 (MiA), or Walter Homke, or Herfried Korner both from 6./JG 27 - (also listed as MiA that day).

S
 
Ok so Christopher Shores Meditteranean Air War Volume IV is out. It gives us considerable data about P-40 operations in the MED, mainly merlin engined P-40F and L from the 5 US Fighter Groups operating the type in Italy and North Africa in 1943 and 1944: 57th FG, 33rd FG, 325th FG, 324th FG, and 79th FG, plus the independent 99th FS (Tuskegee) which was attached to different FG throughout 1943.

Time for an update to the relevant operational history data in this thread.

But first to review, I'm reposting previous data from earlier in the thread, this was posted earlier here:

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.

Also I've learned that US P-40 Fighter Groups claimed 592 victories in the Med (Source is "American Victory Roll", while RAF KIttyhawk groupos claimed 450*. There were also at least two Free French squadrons flying P-40s but I don't have their victory claim totals handy. It is apparent that the US P-40 groups did much better in a shorter time (also suffering far fewer losses) which is probably attributable to their being issued mostly merlin engined P-40F and L, along with at least 1 squadron worth of P-40K (Allison engined but fairly 'souped up' with ~1500 hp available at low altitude). Shores also says that American pilots arriving in the Med had more training and were flying pairs etc. It's worth noting however that there were 46 Commonwealth P-40 Aces, and at least 10 RAF or RAAF double aces (six of whom had 15 or more kills in the type), while there were only 18 US P-40 Aces in the Med and one double Ace (Levi Chase from the 33rd FG).

Anyway, here is some more operational data from May, June and July 1943, coinciding with operations over Pantelleria, Sicily and Sardania. Operation Husky - the invasion of Sicily was on July 10 1943. On many of these days (and several others I didn't include in this post) P-40 pilots made claims but so did Spitfires or P-38 pilots. I included a few of those just to give a sense of it. On a few days P-40 units, especially the 325th FG, were on fighter sweeps far away from friendly fighters, and engaged Axis fighters on their own. I put these in bold.

May 27 1943 (US 325th FG vs. Italian 51 and 42 Stormo) 3 x MC 202 lost / 0 P-40s lost
May 28 1943 (US 325th FG and 14th FG [P-38] vs JG 27 and Italian 41 and 150 Stormo) 3 x Bf 109G-4 and G-6 lost**, 1 x Bf 109G (Italian) lost / 1 P-40 and 1 P-38 lost
June 6 1943 (US 325th FG and 52FG [Spit V] vs JG 27 and JG 53) 3 x Bf 109 shot down*** / 0 P-40 shot down
June 10 1943 (US 325th and 79th FG and 31st FG [Spit] vs JG 27 and JG 53, and Italian 161, 22, and 53 Stormos) 15 x Bf 109s lost, 8 MC 202 lost**** / 3 P-40s lost
July 8 1943 (US 324th FG vs. JG 77 and JG 53 and Italian 150 Gr CT) 5 x German Bf 109G-6 lost and 1 x Italian Bf 109G lost / 3 P-40s lost
July 22 1943 (US 325th FG vs. Italian 22 and 51 Stormo) 4 x MC 205 shot down, (+ 2 x 205 'shot up by P-40s') 3 x MC 202 & 1 X D.520 shot down , Ca 309 shot down / 2 x P40 lost
July 26 1943 (US 325th FG vs. JG 53 and Italian 51 Stormo) 2 x Bf 109G shot down, 1 x MC 205 (+1 205 'shot up by fighters') / 0 P-40s lost
July 30 1943 (US 325th FG vs. JG 77) 6 x Bf 109G Shot down***** / 1 P-40 shot down

So far I found one day in Vol IV where there were massive losses of P-40s in air combat:

July 10 1943 (Invasion of Sicily day) losses included 8 x Spitfires, 6x P-38s, 5 x P-40Ls, 4 x B-25s, 2 x B-26 and 5 x A-36 (P-51 dive bombers) all to undertermined reasons. German losses included 7 x Bf 109, & 4 x RE 2002

Though I have not read the book yet only skimmed it and read the pages of the above conflicts.


The standout group here is the 325th FG "Checkertail Clan" which was assigned as escort fighters for the 2686th Bomb Wing (which included 17th, 319th and 320th Bomb Group, all flying B-26 'Marauder' Medium bombers). 325h was basically free to do fighter sweeps and fly loose escort missions and thus engaged large numbers of Axis fighters on numerous occasions.

This period was the invasion of Italy so opposition included a mix of Bf 109, Fw 190, MC 205, MC 202 and Re 2002 fighters. Fw 190s were mostly being used as Jabos and for ground attack.


* it's unclear to me at this time if this includes Tomahawk claims or not.
** on this day P-40 pilots made claims for 6 Bf 109s, P-38 pilots claimed 2
*** one Bf 109 claimed by Spitfire pilots, 3 claimed by P-40s. One additional Bf 109 was reported shot down by defensive gunners on B-17s
**** 13 claims by Spitfire pilots 21 claims by P-40 pilots
***** There was also one claim by a Spitfire pilot, Shores says the loss of one 8./JG 77 plane may have been by the Spitfire or by 325 FG
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting that. Very enlightening.
Lately I've been comming to realize that the p40 was a whole lot more effective than the conventional wisdom has had it all these years.
 
Agreed - it's also a lesson in how tactics and field modifications could make a major difference in outcomes. The 325th FG were real killers, they had a very good leader who was himself an Ace (Lt. Col. Robert Baseler) who was simultaneously flexible and disciplined.

The lightening of the aircraft (later built-in with the P-40L), tweaking the engines for higher boost, flying in pairs and using special tactics, and being able to specialize in fighter operations instead of a heavy emphasis on fighter-bomber sorties all made a big difference.


Apparently he had a competition with his crew, he kept painting 'stud' on the plane, they kept painting 'mortimer snerd' on it. It went back and forth.


One thing the 325th did on at least two occasions was to use one lower flying squadron as bait, flying out ahead of the others. The first squadron would be attacked by the Bf 109s or MC 205 / 202s, and would 'pull' their pursuers out to sea, where they would be 'bounced' from out of the Sun by the other squadron or sometimes two squadrons, while the original bait squadron would initiate a hard 180 degree turn and rejoin the fight. This is what apparently happened on July 22 and July 30, to the Italians and Luftwaffe respectively.

325th converted to P-47s in September though so their time using P-40s was pretty short. Later they converted again to P-51s.
 
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
7K
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