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.
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
How do you expect your chances of survival to be better in a P-40 when you are being raked by rounds?
Click to expand...

Operative word "IF". If I get hit by enemy rounds, I would rather be in a P-40 than the Bf 109.

Im feeling the need to jump into the defensive on this subject. My very first comment was that a P-40 wouldn't be easy meat for a Bf 109. I didn't say that a P-40 is superior. Just give credit where credit is due. Yes, I am tainted somewhat because it is my overall favorite. But half of it is simply as a kid I loved the looks of the plane too, and still do. If my life depended on my choice of aircraft, the Bf 109 would be at the top of the list of planes I would want to be in. As much as I love the P-40, it would be nowhere near the top.

I had not seen that link you posted Marshal, thanks. Nor have I seen the one posted by Graeme, but I have read similar accounts before. The P-40 and P-39 were both severly hampered by the US AIR CORPS' concept of Pursuit planes at the time, and that same thinking is what prevented those planes from being developed FROM THE START for working at the same altitudes the B-17 was designed to operate.
 

Hey now, chill out...

You do not need to go on the defensive here. I was asking a simple question, and nothing else. All I wanted was for you to explain why anyone would be safer in a P-40 than a Bf 109. It was just a question!

Spend some time on these forums, and you might actually see that I am not someone that you usually need to go on the defensive with.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Hey now, chill out...
Spend some time on these forums, and you might actually see that I am not someone that you usually need to go on the defensive with.
Click to expand...

Eagle, I was feeling the need to be defensive about my positions on the P-40, due to several posts, not soley yours. I just chose to answer your question directly. I am not one to get upset, or get stupid on a forum for which I joined to have a good time. I will not flame or attack anyone, and I hope you didn't take it that way. We are talking about common interests we all have. I love this type of debate. And I have read back along way into old posts...but I only have so much time to spend on a computer.

I know I was heavily promoting an airplane that is commonly overlooked. Sometimes you read things that make the P-40 sound like a Cessna 152 with a couple of guns shoved in the wings.

So getting back to answer your question as to why; I feel the stronger structure of a P-40, would give the pilot a better chance of limping home with structural damage, than in the 109.
 

Great to have you aboard. Nice to have another sober member on the forum.

So getting back to answer your question as to why; I feel the stronger structure of a P-40, would give the pilot a better chance of limping home with structural damage, than in the 109.
Click to expand...

While I'm not sure wether the P-40's structure is stronger, I'd say that the cannon fire would make just as short work of it as it would with any other fighter (Except perhaps the P-47).
 


Thanks Soren!

I don't have any "proof" data, but in my readings the P-40 wing is incredibly strong. I have never read of a P-40 shedding its wings in a dive. However, if this fight occurrs at low altitude (which would have to happen for the P-40 to even be there), I doubt that either plane would get into enough dive speed to be concerned of structure damage from manuevers. Getting hit by cannon fire is another story obviously. I would still rather be in the P-40 if hit by either cannon or guns from the 109, than being in the 109 being hit by .50 cal fire from the P-40.
Really the only deficiency with the P-40 was the lack of high altitude capability with the engine. IF it had altitude capability, it would be on par with the Spit MkV and 109F. And I am saying the P-40E and later variants. The early B/C Warhawks that had the mix of .50 and .30 cal guns would be at a distinct disadvantage.
 

Interesting article, especially how he says that they ran the P-39s and P-40s above their the limits per the manuals. I guess if you are getting aircraft and engines for free you can abuse them all you want.

Does anybody have Clide Caldwell's opinion of the P-40?
 

Cheers

MikeGazdik said:
I know I was heavily promoting an airplane that is commonly overlooked. Sometimes you read things that make the P-40 sound like a Cessna 152 with a couple of guns shoved in the wings.
Click to expand...

I too think that the P-40 is an underrated aircraft. However compared to the "top" fighters of WW2 (from any country and side), I do believe the P-40 was a step behind. In the beginning I think she could hold her own against anyone, but by 1943 she was a step behind.

I think if you took a P-40 and a Bf 109, put a pilot in each that was equal and had the same training the Bf 109 would come out on top 7 out of 10 times. Of course this is just my opinion, there is no way to actually prove this. Like I said above, you could trade out the Bf 109 with any of WW2's "top" fighters (Spitfire, P-51, Fw 190, P-47, etc...).

This of course in the end would matter where the fight was taking place. All aircraft had advantages and disadvantages over other aircraft at certain altitudes. It is possible the P-40 had a slight advantage over the Bf 109 at certain (lower) altitudes. Of course a trained Bf 109 pilot will know this and try to avoid getting into a fight at those lower altitudes.

MikeGazdik said:
So getting back to answer your question as to why; I feel the stronger structure of a P-40, would give the pilot a better chance of limping home with structural damage, than in the 109.
Click to expand...

What gives you the idea that the P-40 had a stronger structure?
 

The other side is if you do not abuse the engines the plane is shot down and you have to replace the whole plane instead of just the engine. This goes along with the Sherman tank that had a gun with a low enough velocity to last 4000 rounds. You replaced fewer guns but more tanks.
 
Marcel said:
I have tried to persuade these nutheads that the Fokker G.I was the best fighter of WWII and they still don't believe me. 8)
Click to expand...

C'mon Marcel we all know the Aussie Boomerang was the best

Marshall_Stack said:
Does anybody have Clide Caldwell's opinion of the P-40?
Click to expand...

Of the two (Tomahawk and Kittyhawk), Caldwell preferred the Tomahawk...



Neville Duke (famed post-war test pilot), who at one point served under Caldwell, gives his view thus...



Ability to absorb damage? I think Wildcat posted the story of Jacklin's P-40, but here's the photo again...

 
Speaking of Messerschmitts, I have been drooling over this video for the last half a year.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nj77mJlzrc

Two notes of interest to me: 1) When the pilot first starts the engine, it starts immediately, didn't spin any blades through to prime, no coughing. Is that common to the DB engine, or was it because perhaps it was warm already? That is one sweet sounding engine!!!
2) Most importantly. This pilot is obviously not concerned with the "poor" ground handling of the aircraft!
 
I've seen white 14 (a 109E) start up and it did the same when it was warm. BTW - I met the pilot of that 109. He was in my pit during the Reno Air Races this year. I even had dinner with him and all the time really didn't realize who he was!
 
they sometimes use Quick Start or ether what ever the local equivilant is
 
I read in several reports where German BF109 pilots would rather tangle with the British Hurricane than a P40 Warhawk. In fact, some German pilots claimed to have downed P40s during the Battle of Britain (they were mistakenly identified as P40s- actually, the typr shot down were Hurricanes) and the German pilots got considerably more accolades from their comrades. Although no P40s participated in that famous air battle, it would have been interesting to see how the venerable Warhawk would have fared compared to the British Hurricane.
 
I'd go with the P-40 due to the armament of the kittyhawk, the inherent stregnth, and because it was the sexiest plane during WW2.
 
C'mon, the P-40 with a good pilot would have totally smoked a 109, especially late in the war-the 109 pilots were ussually green!
 
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