Bf-109 vs P-40 (3 Viewers)

[Amsel]

I really can't agree that the P-40 was as good as the 109, especially late war. The P-40 could hold its own when using good tactics in the eary war but no way could the P-40N come even close to the Me109G6A/S or any of the later Gustavs or Kurfursts. I do agree that the Allies had more pilots in the late war, but this doesn't reflect the aircraft.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Don't sell the LW short. Although the quality of their pilots diminished in the latter part of the war, they had plenty of excellent seasoned veterans that were just as good and in many cases better than allied pilots. Additionally their equipment in many situations was better as well. The biggest problem the LW had was fuel and sometimes being overwhelmed in numbers.

 

[airboiy]

Don't sell the LW short. Although the quality of their pilots diminished in the latter part of the war, they had plenty of excellent seasoned veterans that were just as good and in many cases better than allied pilots. Additionally their equipment in many situations was better as well. The biggest problem the LW had was fuel and sometimes being overwhelmed in numbers.

But the LW never used their experienced pilots to train the new pilots, did they? This resulted in the good pilots dissapearing in the later years of the war, which was a life saver to the Allies. Otherwise, the Allies would have lost air superiority over Europe (can anyone say another Battle of Britian?).

 

[Soren]

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.

Even the Bf-109 G-6 held the edge over the P-40 in every aspect of flight, that it was heavier meant nothing as the aerodynamics of the G-6 were much better than that of the 109E.

 

[Colin1]

Early on, the pilots of the Bf109s were good and the planes OK

That's very inaccurate when you take it out of context like that
Within its phase of WWII, the Bf109E was as good as anything in the world, ask the pilot of any Spitfire Mk I or II or Hurricane I - its contemporaries - the Bf109E was a dangerous opponent.

 

[Colin1]

...the Allies would have lost air superiority over Europe (can anyone say another Battle of Britain?)

Yes, you can
but only if you promise to explain what you mean

 

[renrich]

On the day that Marseille had his 17 kills, all single engined fighters, I thought that the majority were P40s.

 

[JoeB]

On the day that Marseille had his 17 kills, all single engined fighters, I thought that the majority were P40s.

Marseille was credited with 16 P-40's and a Spitfire Sept 1 1942. Total LW credits were 26. Total Allied single engine fighter losses were 20: 9 Hurricanes, 4 Kittyhawks, 4 Tomahawks, 1 USAAF P-40F, and 2 Spitfires, though not all certainly lost to German a/c. It's clear from the blow by blow that some of Marseille's opponents that day were Hurricanes he mistook for P-40's. See Ring and Shores "Fighters over the Desert". It's clear from that book that the exchange ratio of bf109 v P-40 (or Desert AF fighters generally for that matter) in that theater and period was distinctly in favor of the Germans, though the German credits were usually more exaggerated than is implied by the particular example above.

Before somebody mentioned 4:1 ratio in favor of P-40's adjusted for actual enemy losses. When did that happen? (in any significant sample).

Joe

 

[HoHun]

Hi Flyboyj,

>Consider it "rubbish," and take Shilling's comments with a grain of salt, I mean after all he only flew with the Flying Tigers.

Against Messerschmitts? Come on!

For a quote P-40 pilot with actual experience in fighting Me 109s, here is one from Hal Marting's diary, a 250th Fighter Squadron pilot who flew in North Africa:

"Although the Jerry guns along the Egyptian coast were out of range and everything seemed quiet and peaceful ... there wasn't a man of us ... who didn't know that a Messerschmitt could outrun, outclimb and outshoot us any day of the year. Our safety lay in sharp eyes, numbers and formation."

(Verbatim as reproduced in Humphrey Wynn's "Desert Egales", complete with the ellipses. Marting was killed in a flying accident in the USA after finishing his tour of duty, before the end of the war.)

>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.

Hm, there are several things to consider:

- A superior performance aircraft doesn't mean an automatical victory.
- A historical victory doesn't mean the winner's aircraft had superior performance.
- Performance is a well-defined technical term (and invariably recorded on paper).
- Combat history should not be judged by claims of one side alone.
- An aircraft should not be judged by its most successful day.

Since it seems that the 325th Fighter Group received a Distinguished Unit Citation for the action on July 30, 1943 (Factsheets : 325th Operations Group : 325th Operations Group), during which (if Timppa's numbers are correct) they downed 4 Messerschmitts for the loss of 1 P-40, I'd tend to consider that a better-than-average day for the 325th, to put it mildly.

It's perfectly fine to look at combat result as long as it doesn't result in blindness to other factors ... and some guys deliberately turn a blind eye, which is why I didn't think much of your first quote block.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Hi Flyboyj,

>Consider it "rubbish," and take Shilling's comments with a grain of salt, I mean after all he only flew with the Flying Tigers.

Against Messerschmitts? Come on!

For a quote P-40 pilot with actual experience in fighting Me 109s, here is one from Hal Marting's diary, a 250th Fighter Squadron pilot who flew in North Africa:

"Although the Jerry guns along the Egyptian coast were out of range and everything seemed quiet and peaceful ... there wasn't a man of us ... who didn't know that a Messerschmitt could outrun, outclimb and outshoot us any day of the year. Our safety lay in sharp eyes, numbers and formation."

(Verbatim as reproduced in Humphrey Wynn's "Desert Egales", complete with the ellipses. Marting was killed in a flying accident in the USA after finishing his tour of duty, before the end of the war.)

>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.

Hm, there are several things to consider:

- A superior performance aircraft doesn't mean an automatical victory.
- A historical victory doesn't mean the winner's aircraft had superior performance.
- Performance is a well-defined technical term (and invariably recorded on paper).
- Combat history should not be judged by claims of one side alone.
- An aircraft should not be judged by its most successful day.

Since it seems that the 325th Fighter Group received a Distinguished Unit Citation for the action on July 30, 1943 (Factsheets : 325th Operations Group : 325th Operations Group), during which (if Timppa's numbers are correct) they downed 4 Messerschmitts for the loss of 1 P-40, I'd tend to consider that a better-than-average day for the 325th, to put it mildly.

It's perfectly fine to look at combat result as long as it doesn't result in blindness to other factors ... and some guys deliberately turn a blind eye, which is why I didn't think much of your first quote block.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

All points taken but as you plotted out, its obvious the -109 could out perform the P-40, but the limitations of the aircraft did not make it a "sitting duck," I think that's the point attempting to be made. If flown in numbers and in situations to exploit its strengths, it was able to compete.

 

[tigercub]

1/3 of all 109s built were destroyed in takeoff and landing accidents. That's ridiculous. Nothing like that happened to the P-40.

This is only because the Me109 was forced to land and take off in the poor airfields of the USSR and narrow under carriage.....the spitfire suffered the same thing.

The p40 was only a little better fighter than the Hurricane!

 

[tigercub]

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.

The p40 would only have slightly better turn capabilities (maybe) if the me109g6 had wing mounted guns if there were not fitted the G6 would easy out turn the P40.Then the Germans used the Me109 a fighter (not with wing guns) or as a bomber attack aircraft (with wing guns 20-30mm,200m rocket)

 

[claidemore]

tigercub:
According to the Rechlin trials (1940?), the Curtis Hawk (radial engine fighter with same fuselage/wing etc of the heavier inline engined P40) could easily outturn the 109E. Roll rate of the Hawk was better than either the 109 or the Spitfire.
According to pilots who flew Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in North Africa, they could 'just' outturn 109Fs.
According to pilots who flew both 109Fs and 109Gs, the Friedrich was much more manueverable.

If a P40 can just outturn the 109F, (and roll rate of the P40 was same as the Hawk75) then it follows that it would have an easier time manuevering against the 109G6. I believe the wing gondolas on the 109 added about 2 seconds to it's turning circle, so the advantage of the P40 in turn time would be even greater againt that variant.

JoeB: I think your question was answered a few posts earlier, but: i was referring to a single combat with the 325th where a 4 to 1 ratio was achieved. (Claims were 16 to 1.)

 

[HoHun]

Hi Claidemore,

>According to the Rechlin trials (1940?), the Curtis Hawk (radial engine fighter with same fuselage/wing etc of the heavier inline engined P40) could easily outturn the 109E.

According to my calculations, the Hawk at 2608 kg was able to turn at almost 25 deg/s at sea level.

However, the P-40E with the same wing weighed in at 3911 kg, resulting in less than 17 deg/s turn rate at sea level - which shouldn't come as a surprise.

The Me 109E (depending on exact variant and engine) turned at some 20 deg/s at sea level at 2690 kg, and the G-6 weighed in at 3090 kg at substantially increased power, losing hardly anything on the Emil in terms of turn rate.

>If a P40 can just outturn the 109F

No way

>(and roll rate of the P40 was same as the Hawk75)

Hm, why do you think so? From some British reports, I believe the aileron actuation system was revised when the P-40 was designed to gain high-speed roll rate at the expense of low-speed roll rate.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[claidemore]

Hm, why do you think so? From some British reports, I believe the aileron actuation system was revised when the P-40 was designed to gain high-speed roll rate at the expense of low-speed roll rate.

Even better! 109 and Spitfire roll rates coincide at higher speeds, and RAE reports show the Hawk rolling better than the Spit at higher speeds, so any improvement there is a plus for the P40.

The Finnish 109G6 manual shows turn time of 26 seconds at 400kmh. Thats only 13.8 degree/second. The P40N or P40F (1943) should have no trouble beating that, particularly with a superior roll rate at higher speeds.

I believe the following clip from the RAE report comparing the Hawk 75 to the Spitfire Mk 1 gives us a pretty good clue as to what happened when the 109s 'bounced' the 325th FG P40s.

 

[JoeB]

If a P40 can just outturn the 109F, (and roll rate of the P40 was same as the Hawk75) then it follows that it would have an easier time manuevering against the 109G6. I believe the wing gondolas on the 109 added about 2 seconds to it's turning circle, so the advantage of the P40 in turn time would be even greater againt that variant.

JoeB: I think your question was answered a few posts earlier, but: i was referring to a single combat with the 325th where a 4 to 1 ratio was achieved. (Claims were 16 to 1.)

OK I subsequently saw that referred to one combat. The only completely conclusive combat between Zeroes and P-35's saw one Zero downed for a P-35 damaged (in all the others P-35's were shot up but none actually ever downed) .

The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.

In general though, 12th AF fighter units were facing an enemy with a lot more combat experience. We don't always have to stick with one head to head match up and argue what portion of the result was human factors. We could also look cross section-wise and see that early 12th AF real results in fighter combat weren't that impressive with P-38's or reverse Lend Lease Spit V's either. Even the typically more experienced RAF/CW fighter units didn't typically have favorable real ratio's v LW units in the MTO in late '42-early 43. We could study whether the results by type were *any* different at all, statistically significantly speaking. I haven't, but that's the kind of real research that could be done to actually advance such a discussion.

*although it wasn't purely subjective, also tested and demonstrated to new pilots using the 325th's Bf109G 'Hoimann' captured in Tunisia, with due caution to condition of captured planes, but again pointing out these are just not simple matters of fact to easily calculate *without* demonstrating that the calculation is correct at full scale.

Joe

 

[HoHun]

Hi Claidemore,

>The Finnish 109G6 manual shows turn time of 26 seconds at 400kmh. Thats only 13.8 degree/second.

At 400 km/h, I calculate the sustained sea level turn rate for the P-40E as just 9.8 deg/s, so 13.8 deg/s would make the Me 109G-6 look rather good. The speed of best turn rate is around 250 km/h for both types, after all.

However, there is no altitude given in the Finnish manual, and the manual actually quotes 13 s for 180 deg, not 26 s for 360 deg, so there is no telling if this is a sustained turn at sea level or a instantaneous turn at some relevant combat alttiude.

>I believe the following clip from the RAE report comparing the Hawk 75 to the Spitfire Mk 1 gives us a pretty good clue as to what happened when the 109s 'bounced' the 325th FG P40s.

Oh dear - you can't just pick one trait and explain any specific combat outcome with it. That's like picking one trait of a chess piece and using it to explain the outcome of an endgame when you weren't even there to witness the game.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Glider]

The following may be of interest re 325th FG

Ops Summary
Total Vic AC

I admit that I find the figures more than a little high. They seem to higher than any fighter unit of any airforce that I can think of and as they were an inexperienced unit when they entered action with the P40 it just doesn't feel right. There is no reason I can think of why they should have done so much better than any other P40 unit with their lack of experience.

 

[renrich]

JoeB, Thanks for your post. In some ways, it seems as if some are trying to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse with a P40. Dean's "America's Hundred Thousand" gives a good appraisal of the various models of the P40 and pilot comments also. There were good reasons why the P40 was not used much later in the war in the areas where high intensity air fighting was going on. The AAF had better fighter aircraft to replace the P40, just as the USN had better AC to replace the F4F. The BF 109 seemed to be able to be adapted enough that it could compete with the latest models of Allied AC. If it had not been adaptable, the LW would have quit ordering it. Try as they might Curtis could not bring the P40 up to late war standards.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

OK I subsequently saw that referred to one combat. The only completely conclusive combat between Zeroes and P-35's saw one Zero downed for a P-35 damaged (in all the others P-35's were shot up but none actually ever downed) .

The 325th FG's opinion was that the P-40 could out turn the 109. Calculated estimates are nice, but they aren't facts. I'm not saying the 325th's opinion was a solid fact either*, just these questions aren't solved (or shouldn't be to anyone who is thinking) by making a few inputs into canned software and throwing up a graph. The 325th believed that an effective tactic was to fly slightly below 10k ft and that in the typical opening moves of a combat by 109's diving from above, the P-40's could split ess away and 109's couldn't follow, presumably through some combination of superiority in horizontal plane, dive and roll.

In general though, 12th AF fighter units were facing an enemy with a lot more combat experience. We don't always have to stick with one head to head match up and argue what portion of the result was human factors. We could also look cross section-wise and see that early 12th AF real results in fighter combat weren't that impressive with P-38's or reverse Lend Lease Spit V's either. Even the typically more experienced RAF/CW fighter units didn't typically have favorable real ratio's v LW units in the MTO in late '42-early 43. We could study whether the results by type were *any* different at all, statistically significantly speaking. I haven't, but that's the kind of real research that could be done to actually advance such a discussion.

*although it wasn't purely subjective, also tested and demonstrated to new pilots using the 325th's Bf109G 'Hoimann' captured in Tunisia, with due caution to condition of captured planes, but again pointing out these are just not simple matters of fact to easily calculate *without* demonstrating that the calculation is correct at full scale.

Joe

Great post Joe and that hits the nail on the head