Fighter Bombers in Europe. Why not a P-40 instead of a P-47?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

R

Rufus123

Airman 1st Class
141
1
Sep 1, 2013
I think the P-47 is better at the ground attack role then the P-40 but I have a question.

Was the P-47 no longer needed in the role as a high altitude fighter? I guess if it is no longer needed in that role then make it a fighter bomber.

I just wondered if the P-40's since they were unable to do the high altitude role they could have been used in ground attack so that more P-47's could be left flying high.

If the P-47 was no longer needed in number at high altitude could the P-40's have been used to increase the number of ground attack planes or were they being utilized for other jobs still?

Maybe the P-40 was obsolete as a fighter but I have long wondered why it was not used as a fighter bomber so that other planes could keep doing their jobs.
 
Last edited:
Was the P-47 no longer needed in the role as a high altitude fighter? I guess if it is no longer needed in that role then make it a fighter bomber.
Click to expand...

P-47s deployed in Europe never had a range comparable to P-51. When the latter was deployed, more P-47s were available for fighter bomber roles. P-40 was obsolete as a fighter and it was equipped with liquid cooled engine, more prone to damage.
 
alejandro_ said:
P-47s deployed in Europe never had a range comparable to P-51. When the latter was deployed, more P-47s were available for fighter bomber roles. P-40 was obsolete as a fighter and it was equipped with liquid cooled engine, more prone to damage.
Click to expand...

I thought the P-47's were being used on the first leg of escorts even after the P-51 was available. Maybe they had more than enough.
 
I thought the P-47's were being used on the first leg of escorts even after the P-51 was available. Maybe they had more than enough.
Click to expand...

Yes, but P-51 saw most of the action from mid 1944. Luftwaffe was being depleted and could not oppose resistance at every stage. If you read Osprey's volume on 56 FG, you can see how frustrated they got about lack of targets and P-51s scoring most kills.
 
The P-40 was obsolete and recognized as such in 1943. It 1943 the Army had decided that the P-40 would be used as an advanced trainer and an aircraft to be supplied to allied countries. US Combat use would be limited to replacement aircraft to units already in service ( and none were in Britain or the European theater as opposed to the Mediterranean theater) until such time as the P-40 units could be re-equipped with newer aircraft.
 
Just curious, at this time was the USA producing more planes than pilots or more pilots than planes?
 
By 1944 there was no shortage of aircraft.

And to have effective squadrons you not only need pilots you need ground personnel, air-frame and engine mechanics, electricians, radio repairmen, armorers and so on.
 
Last edited:
P-40s were used extensively for ground attack well into 1943.

By 1944 there were plenty of P-47s available. The newer aircraft had a larger airframe and more powerful engine which allowed a greater payload to be carried.

The P-40 was good in it's day but that day was over by 1944.
 

I get it. My thought was you when a plane becomes useless as a fighter it could have some life left in it as a ground attack tool but if there were plenty of more capable planes around I can see it no longer being used. My concern was taking the P-47 away from the fighter role. With plenty of planes to go around it is no longer needed.

Thanks for the replies.
 
Wouldn't have the use of RR Griffon made the P-40 a competitive (non-obsolete) fighter?
At least the Griffon was powerful enough.
 
Last edited:
Just imagine that a Griffon or Jumo213 would have been installed in a P-40, its performance should have been about that of a Spit 14 or a Dora-9.
It is of similar build, dimensions and weight.
I also suppose it does not have significantly more drag than the others mentioned. Power to weight ratio should be comparable to the others as well as is wing loading.
Range is also adequate, more than a Spitfire's.

As you all know about the P-51, it was almost on par with the Spit and the Dora as a fighter whilst having a much weaker engine.
That's why I am asking about the possibility of putting a Griffon in a P-40 as a potential alternative to the Spitfire XIV.
I know it's a moot point, but still...
 
Putting a larger engine in an obsolete airplane is not going to make it equal to other aircraft. A Griffon in a P-40 would not put it in the same class or capability as the Mk.XIV Spitfire, nor the Dora-9.
 
If a Griffon was going into anything from the US, it would have been into a P-51. That would have been fun....
 
evangilder said:
Putting a larger engine in an obsolete airplane is not going to make it equal to other aircraft. A Griffon in a P-40 would not put it in the same class or capability as the Mk.XIV Spitfire, nor the Dora-9.
Click to expand...

I am no specialist but I can`t see any design features that cannot be rectified to make the P-40 competitive . And what makes an airplane obsolete?
The P-40 was never able to show its true potential having engines that are weaker than those of its counterparts.
Of course its design was not up to par with the laminar flow wing equipped P-51 which had an engine which could not compete with Spits and Doras performance wise yet made it almost equal as a fighter to them. So a Griffon powered P-51 would be on top and took the place the P-40 might occupied if one does not count the superior range and speed in.
That makes the Spitfire the prime contestant.
The P-40 had bad luck that the niche it could have fulfilled was already taken by other designs that were given the best (better) engines possible.
Maybe it is that over the years the reputation of the P-40 being obsolete grew to common believe.
I am convinced that if given the right engine and more chance of development it would have been equal to the others.
 
P-40s remained the dominant fighter bomber in the pacific and med TOs for the bigger part of the war. They were very good at it, but were obsolete by the end. For Northwest Europe it was a case of sending the best where it was most needed, and the best was the p-47. P-47s could complete two roles, p-40s by late 1943 were definately not competitive in air to air roles
 

The P-40 was a re-engined P-36. By 1943 you are beating a dead horse. Curtiss was trying to design a replacement for the P-36/P-40 that would go for years rather than stretch the P-40's life by months.

The P-40 in 1940-42 did NOT have engines weaker than it's counterparts. What it had was too much weight and/or drag for the engine. From the "E" model on it went over 8000lbs at take-off clean. Depending on exact model it was almost ONE TON heavier than a MK V Spitfire and 109. In 1944 a P-40 with a 1400lb engine weighed as much (or within 200lbs) of a Spitfire MK XIV with a 2100lb Griffon engine, stick the Griffon in the P-40, add the bigger prop, bigger radiators, the inter cooler, the coolant and see where you wind up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
609
Shortround6
S
Airwar Over Europe?
Replies
2
Views
572
Canaus
C
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
M
Train in a PT-19
Replies
3
Views
499
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register