Bf-109 vs P-40 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter beaupower32
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
claidemore
Senior Airman
Pretty hard to shoot down a green pilot in a plane that is 50 mph (or more) faster than your own.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If we're talking a P-40 from the Bs through the Ns against a 109E, it could and did compete. The 109G and on, yes far superior.
drgondog
Major
Not sure P-40's engaged more than a smattering of 109s after 1943 - the USAAF replaced the P-40 with Spits, Jugs and finally 51s.
Net - few 'green' pilots were faced by P-40's.
I suspect the air to air ratio of P-40s vs Me 109 was slightly higher than against the Zero in the PTO and CBI but it was the lowest air to air ratio in the USAAF inventory of fighters, even with AVG experience to jump start it.
This has been a hard airplane (P-40) for me to get data on relative to air to air ratios simply because the award systems were all over the place with respect to due diligence.
Hi Flyboyj,
>If we're talking a P-40 from the Bs through the Ns against a 109E, it could and did compete. The 109G and on, yes far superior.
Here is an analysis ... I picked the P-40E, the Me 109E-4 with DB 601A and "new-type" supercharger, and the Me 109F-4.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>If we're talking a P-40 from the Bs through the Ns against a 109E, it could and did compete. The 109G and on, yes far superior.
Here is an analysis ... I picked the P-40E, the Me 109E-4 with DB 601A and "new-type" supercharger, and the Me 109F-4.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Attachments
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Good info, but consider this...
The 325FG flew 128 combat missions with the P-40 in the MTO.
Results:
Shot down in air-to-air combat:
96 Me 109
26 MC 202
7 Me 323
3 Ju 52
3 Fi 156
In addition, the 325's P-40s dropped 329,000 lbs. of bombs.
Losses:
17 to enemy fighters
6 to flak
5 to unknown causes (probably weather, fuel or mechanical)
3 to engine failure
2 to mid-air collision
1 to small-arms fire
1 to hitting high tension wires.
On July 1, 1943, while on a fighter sweep over southern Italy, 22 P-40s
were bounced by 40 Me 109s. Results: one P-40 shot down, 20 Me 109s shot down.
On July 30, 1943, similar situation: 20 P-40s on a fighter sweep over Italy
bounced by 35 Me 109s. One P-40 shot down, 21 Me 109s shot down.
In these two battles, the 109s engaged the P-40s in classic, turning
dogfights--and lost big time. The Curtiss fighter could outmaneuver the German
fighter, take hits that would wreck the Me, and dish out much greater firepower
than the 109. The Me's only clear superiority was in the climb, which was not
helpful. It could not out-turn the P-40s, dive away from them or outrun them.
Nor could it outshoot them or take as much punishment as they could.
Add in the fact that the Mess. drivers faced a very aggressive bunch of pilots
(the motto of the 325 was "Shoot the Bastards"), and it's no wonder they found
themselves "screwed, blued and tattooed."
Never sell the P-40 short.
http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html
http://us.share.geocities.com/raf_112_sqdn2/325thfghonor_roll.html
From the same page...
The P-40B was. . .
40 mph faster than the AM6-2 (21) Zero.
50 mph faster than the Hyabusa, or Ki-43.
70 mph faster than the fixed gear I-96.
195 mph faster than the cruise speed of the Ki-21 Sally.
130 mph faster in a dive than any Japanese fighter.
3 times the roll rate of the Zero.
P-40 was 5 mph faster than the Me 109 E-3 at 15,000 feet
P-40 was 9 mph faster than the Spitefire Mk.IA at 15,000 feet
The P-40 could out turn the Me. 109 E-3, and could out dive it.
The P-40 was not the dog that everyone seem to think it was.
The P-40B flown by the Flying Tigers had. . .
Self sealing fuel tanks. . . Japanese aircraft had none.
Armor plate that would stop any bullet fired from a Japanese
fighter or bomber encountered over Burma.
Bullet proof windshield that would stop any Japanese fighter or
bomber's machine gun bullets.
Very much stronger than the flimsily constructed Japanese aircraft.
A number of Zero's shed their wings at speeds slightly over 350 IAS
mph. Japanese would not even attempt a dive that approached 350
IAS. None of Japan's aircraft could even stand up to P-40's 30 and
50 caliber guns. It only required a few incendiary bullet, even
from our 30 cal. guns, to set fire or explode their aircraft.
Although subsequent model P-40s did fall behind the new model
Me.109s and British Spitfires in performance, however in every case,
each new model Zero that came out remained inferior to their
contemporary P-40.
Now why in the hell would anyone consider the Zero to be the best
fighter of the war?
Hell it didn't even start out that way. . .
The above is not just my opinion, but garnered from available
facts, and flying the P-40 in combat.
What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I.
Erik Shilling
--
Erik Shilling Author; Destiny: A Flying Tiger's
Flight Leader Rendezvous With Fate.
3rd Squadron AVG
Flying Tigers
Last edited:
MikeGazdik
Senior Airman
No disrespect to Mr. Shilling, he is a hero. But he is a biased fan of the P-40. As Johnosn is of the P-47, and Hartmann of the Me109.
But the info from the 325th......hmmmm. Very interesting. Apparently they didn't read the book that says the Warhawk is no match for the Messerschmitt.
But the info from the 325th......hmmmm. Very interesting. Apparently they didn't read the book that says the Warhawk is no match for the Messerschmitt.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Which is why the main attack by the AVG were to dive on the Zeros and climb for another pass, correct?
What were optimum atiltudes for the P-40 and Bf 109? In NA (where most P-40 vs Bf 109 engagements happened), wasn't most dogfighting at low altitude - what would be the comparison betwee the two then?
Hi Flyboyj,
>Good info, but consider this...
I consider "this" rubbish.
>The Me's only clear superiority was in the climb, which was not helpful. It could not out-turn the P-40s, dive away from them or outrun them.
The Me 109 clearly could outrun the P-40, and every model after the Emil could outrun it easily. It could just as clearly out-turn the P-40. Similar power, similar wing loading, the Me 109 about a ton lighter than the P-40 ... the result is fairly obvious.
Whoever came up with that "summary" is clearly biased, and the value of the entire piece is rather doubtful with false claims like that.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Good info, but consider this...
I consider "this" rubbish.
>The Me's only clear superiority was in the climb, which was not helpful. It could not out-turn the P-40s, dive away from them or outrun them.
The Me 109 clearly could outrun the P-40, and every model after the Emil could outrun it easily. It could just as clearly out-turn the P-40. Similar power, similar wing loading, the Me 109 about a ton lighter than the P-40 ... the result is fairly obvious.
Whoever came up with that "summary" is clearly biased, and the value of the entire piece is rather doubtful with false claims like that.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Didn't Marseille manage to get inside a group of South African P-40s flying in a Luftberry Circle and decimate them? I would think he could have only done that if his plane had a tighter turn radious then the P-40's.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Consider it "rubbish," and take Shilling's comments with a grain of salt, I mean after all he only flew with the Flying Tigers. - the fact remains that on at least two occasion pilots from the 325th FG mauled Bf-109s and their combat history is fact. Pilot skill, luck or performance of the aircraft, the fact remains that P-40s DID on occasion take the fight to the -109 despite being shown inferior on paper.
AFAIK AVG never met Zeros (let alone 109's) , so any perceived performance difference could not have been based on personal experience.
The 21 downed 109's (against III./ JG 77, 30 July 1943) is not a fact either. The true LW losses seem to have been 4 planes ( 1 KIA, 3 WIA). Good performance from P-40's, though.
Pls, help identify Jagdwaffe units involved - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Correct on all points Timppa. the point remains that the P-40 was no slouch even though on paper it seemed inferior to the 109E.
From your source...
"18. April 1943:
I. and II. /JG 53 lost 4 Bf 109s in combat at Souk-el-Khemis and the Isle of Zembra with 2 pilots MIA and one POW.
One Bf 109 from II./JG 77 was damaged 15% in combat at Pl.Q. 97/4/4/2
10. June 1943:
II./JG 27 lost 11 Bf 109s in combat with Spitfire and P-40s in the Pantellaria-area with sevens pilots MIA and two KIA
30. July 1943:
III./JG 77 lost 5 Bf 109s in combat with Spitfires (1) and P-40s (4) SE of Alghero with 1 pilot KIA, 1 pilot MIA and 3 pilots WIA."
Last edited:
claidemore
Senior Airman
In 1943 the 109s were most likely G6 variants, which were definately not as 'sprightly' as the 109F's, which the P40s faced in North Africa (where those who flew them maintained the P40 had slightly better turn capabilities). I don't doubt that a bunch of later model, heavier 109s would get in trouble in a big furball with P40's. A 4 to 1 kill ratio adjusted for 'actual'? losses (as opposed to claims) is pretty darn good for the P40s and shows that they were able to exploit the differences (advantages) they had over the 109.
Had the 109s used their advantages, (speed and climb) they would have fared much better.
The Finns also enjoyed good success with planes that were inferior on paper. I don't think anyone would argue that the Brewster was a better plane than the later designs they faced, and the Soviets definately weren't clamouring for the USA to give them some lend lease Brewsters rather than P40s and P39s.
Had the 109s used their advantages, (speed and climb) they would have fared much better.
The Finns also enjoyed good success with planes that were inferior on paper. I don't think anyone would argue that the Brewster was a better plane than the later designs they faced, and the Soviets definately weren't clamouring for the USA to give them some lend lease Brewsters rather than P40s and P39s.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Agree
airboiy
Airman 1st Class
See? I've learned (the hard way thanks to the older members of the forum) that a plane is only as good as its pilot.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
To a large degree that's what it boils down to
airboiy
Airman 1st Class
However, due to the poor effeciency of the LW's pilot training program towards the end of the war, I still say the P-40 is better than a -109.
Early on, the pilots of the 109's were good and the planes ok. Towards the end of the war, the pilots of the LW were ok and the planes good. This deffeciency is pretty bad, no? Even though the Germans had great a/c, the pilots weren't good b/cause the true masters of the machines were on the frontline dying, not behind the line training the new pilots effectively. The U.S., in particular, used the better pilots to train the newbs to fly better than their advasaries. And since the trainers had gone up against the enemy themselves, they usually had a good idea what the 109's, 190's, etc. were capable of and knew a way to defeat them. Somewhere I've heard "...that to train good pilots, you need good pilots." That maxim applies to everything.
Early on, the pilots of the 109's were good and the planes ok. Towards the end of the war, the pilots of the LW were ok and the planes good. This deffeciency is pretty bad, no? Even though the Germans had great a/c, the pilots weren't good b/cause the true masters of the machines were on the frontline dying, not behind the line training the new pilots effectively. The U.S., in particular, used the better pilots to train the newbs to fly better than their advasaries. And since the trainers had gone up against the enemy themselves, they usually had a good idea what the 109's, 190's, etc. were capable of and knew a way to defeat them. Somewhere I've heard "...that to train good pilots, you need good pilots." That maxim applies to everything.
- Status
