Greatest aviation myth this site “de-bunked”.

[GregP]

Statistics DO work, assuming the requirements for random samples are met (rarely in my experience), and that's why there are Casinos.

Everyone thinks they can beat the odds. They CAN, at some point, but not over the long haul.

And dealers in Las Vegas are not your run of the mill average dealers, either, making the likely odds even worse.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

From "STRINGBAG The Fairey Swordfish at War", David Wragg, 2004:

Later in the war, No. 830 was to be reinforced with additional Swordfish, and later still a number of Albacores. At one time it became known as the Naval Air Squadron Malta, reaching a peak strength of twenty-seven aircraft, reinforced by a second Swordfish squadron, or parts of squadrons, as happened after the attack on Illustrious, and later Formidable. Malta-based naval aircraft sank an average of 50,000 tons of enemy shipping a month, hindering Italian efforts to keep Axis forces in North Africa supplied, and during one month managed to sink 98,000 tons ofAxis shipping. During 1942, Malta-based Swordfish and Albacores were to account for thirty ships in thirty-six night attacks for a cost of sixty-seven torpedoes and just three aircraft.​

"Malta-based naval aircraft" may not mean only Swordfish, as there were Albacores on Malta during this time. I don't know their numbers or what else was in anti-shipping service at Malta at the time. Possibly Beaufighters and/or Beauforts.

"Fairey Aircraft since 1915", Taylor, 1974, states (p249-250):

According to the records there were never more than 27 Swordfish on Malta, yet they sank an average of 50,000 tons of shipping every month during a period of nine months.​

I'd say the 50,000 tons per month is closer to being plausible rather than a myth.

According to the figures from "Strangling the Axis" aircraft sank 153,000 tons in 1941, 195,563 tons in 1942 and 474,407 tons in 1943. They achieved a monthly high of 35,196 tons in August 1941, exceeded that with 44,105 in November 1942. In no other month did they exceed 30,000. 1943 was when aircraft really shone with the month of May being a major outlier with 101,086 tons coinciding with the Axis collapse in North Africa.
Even in 1943 the average monthly total was less than 50,000.

 

[Simon Thomas]

The posts subsequent to mine I thought were rather illuminating on the subject. Based on what was presented, I'll relent to changing "plausible" to "not supported by the preponderance of post-war evidence".

None of the sources for numbers of tonnage sunk per month or year align. Reconciling the numbers would be a great task to give a vacation student you don't like.

All sources posted for the actual tonnage lost were quite a bit less than that published in the books I referenced. Appears the numbers were claims which were obviously inflated like claims tend to be. I looked up some more Swordfish books, and they tend to have the same figures quoted. The earliest reference was "BRITISH NAVAL AIRCRAFT 1912-1958" published in 1958, which I don't have access to. Finding the source of the numbers in the books would help further the discussion. I don't know of any serious authors who would deliberately falsify numbers, although this forum knows one who is very good at tossing his toys out of the cot.

One thing I would add is that the claim numbers may have included tonnage sunk due to mines laid by the Swordfish. Wragg puts that at 250,000 tons between May and Nov 1941.

 

[WARSPITER]

It is difficult to know what exactly happened.

Total Axis losses in supplies and shipping for the Mediterranean from collation by various sources ;

315,090 tons of supplies.

773 ships, totalling 1,342,789 tons sunk by Allied naval vessels
179 ships of 214,109 tons in total lost to mines.
Shared sinking naval/air/mines, 26 ships at 107828 tons.
1,326 ships, totalling 1,466,208 tons sunk by aircraft.

Total Axis losses - 2,304 ships, with a total of 3,130,969 tons.

What actual types sank what is hard to work out.

 

[The Stannum Liberator]

P-40 was conceived as Army support fighter

What does this even mean? Like in a ground attack role?

 

[tomo pauk]

What does this even mean? Like in a ground attack role?

IMO - that meant a number of things, like indeed the ground attack role, as well as the low-level fighter to protect the Army units and to chase away the enemy recons.

 

[GrauGeist]

*if* the P-40 were to have been for ground attack, the AAC would have designated it as "A", not "P".

The P-40 spun off of the P-36, which was also a "Pursuit" fighter.

 

[The Stannum Liberator]

*if* the P-40 were to have been for ground attack, the AAC would have designated it as "A", not "P".

The P-40 spun off of the P-36, which was also a "Pursuit" fighter.

I just didn't understand what an Army Support Fighter would mean.

 

[MiTasol]

I guess it is any fighter aircraft used to support the US Army which basically means any USAAC/F aircraft with a P-* designation.

 

[GrauGeist]

The A-36 Mustang could fall into that role, I suppose - it was one of the few ground attack aircraft that could engage enemy fighters on equal footing.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The P-40 wasn't designed to provide ground-support. It was adapted to that role later.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-40 wasn't designed to provide ground-support. It was adapted to that role later.

And that is the myth. Many old books and new internet articles, you-tube videos say the P-40 was designed for ground support or low level work.

From an old book by William Green.
"When the requirements for the P-40 were formulated, no prospects of a high-altitude enemy attack against the U.S.A was envisioned, so that coastal defense and ground attack were the main tasks indicated. Low altitude flying qualities and rugged construction therefore received priority, and, in fact the P-40 was subsequently to to prove itself an excellent ground attack weapon."

This was written or at least published in 1957. It does play rather fast and loose with the requirements for the P-40. The XP-40 was built to compete in the 1939 fighter trials held in Jan 1939. The XP-39 missed. Several modified P-36s and P-35s and a few others showed up. The order for the P-40 for over 500 planes was placed in April of 1939.
Now in the Spring of 1939 nobody, anywhere in the world, had any prospects of conducting high altitude attacks against anybody else.
The idea that a plane armed with a pair of cowl mounted .50 cal guns (the .30s in the wing came later) and no (or a few 20lb bombs) was much use for coastal defense (anti ship) or ground attack is pretty ludicrous.
P-40 was a P-36 with a new engine. From the firewall back it was the same airplane so I guess the P-36 was designed for ground support or low level work?
BTW it took another year and half for armor or protected fuel tanks to show up.

In the next paragraph we find;
"Unfortunately, the rated altitude of the Allison engine was only some 12,000ft, rendering combat above 15,000ft a completely impractical proposition."
This also plays fast and loose with the timeline and any connection with the original requirements or design goals of 1938-39.
In April 1939 the Allison engine was best high altitude engine the Army was likely to get in quantity in 1940.
The Engine was rated at 1040hp at 14,300ft (?) at that time. Which is about 2000ft lower than the Merlin III of that time but better than any other engine in 1939.

Unfortunately things changed. Army wanted 1090hp and the Allison could do it, but only around 1000ft lower, it would still make 1040hp at the original altitude.
The engine used in the P-40E was rated at 1150hp at 12,000ft or just under. However it would still make 1040hp just over 14,000ft.
The next change came with the addition of the .30 cal guns. At first 2 but very soon 4 guns (1/2 the armament of the British fighters but with more ammo) while still keeping the .50 cal guns, which weighed about as much as 6 British .303 guns.
Next change was the addition of armor and protected tanks. This is the fall of 1940.
The P-40 went from 6787lbs with 370lbs of guns/ammo to,
The P-40B at 7326lbs with 600lbs of guns and ammo and 93lbs of armor to,
The P-40E at 8098lbs with 901lbs of guns/ammo and 109lbs of armor.

P-40E lack of performance at altitude in 1942 had nothing to do with the requirements or design criteria of 1938/early 1940.
It had a lot to do with the US army over-loading the plane with guns/ammo/fuel and not being able to change the engine very much.
Add 1300lbs to Hurricane I (Merlin III) and see what would happen to altitude performance

So far nobody has been able to come up with any USAAC directive or memo or requirement that says the P-40 was intended to used at low altitude only.

The army wanted higher altitude planes, but they estimated they couldn't get them until 1941-42 (turbos, etc) and they needed planes in 1940. Then they gave (or traded production space) to the French and British in 1940 so the US didn't even get most of the planes they originally ordered. Allison was frantically trying to increase production while trying to come up with improved models. No war in Europe in 1939 might mean faster development of higher altitude versions and smaller number of of -33 and -39 engines?

 

[GrauGeist]

The USAAC had been toying with high-altitude pursuit types, such as the P-30 and P-43, and interestingly enough, the P-36 had better range and altitude performance than the P-40, just not the overall speed.

 

[Shortround6]

The USAAC had been toying with high-altitude pursuit types, such as the P-30 and P-43, and interestingly enough, the P-36 had better range and altitude performance than the P-40, just not the overall speed.

Not to mention the XP-37 and YP-37s (which didn't start being delivered until after the P-40 order was placed), A few turbo Airacudas, the XP-39, and the P-38.
Upshot was that the USAAC, as mentioned above, didn't think the turbo planes would be ready for squadron service until 1941 or later and the Army needed something better than the P-36 in 1940. 350mph P-40s beat 320mph P-36s.
Part of the P-36s altitude 'ability' was the fact that it was around 900lbs lighter than the very early P-40s, not that it had a better engine. When you are 15% lighter you can get away with less power.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

In 1937 or so the USAAC was simply throwing crap at the wall to see what would stick, I think. Things were going south around the world and we knew we had to rearm. P-40 and P-38 were the two good stories to come out of it all, the first for being available quickly, the latter (after its teething troubles) for being a good all-round fighter.

Those were the two that mattered until the P-47 came along, and both of them mattered throughout the war as well. Not a bad tale to tell.

 

[Elvis]

And that is the myth. Many old books and new internet articles, you-tube videos say the P-40 was designed for ground support or low level work.

From an old book by William Green.
"When the requirements for the P-40 were formulated, no prospects of a high-altitude enemy attack against the U.S.A was envisioned, so that coastal defense and ground attack were the main tasks indicated. Low altitude flying qualities and rugged construction therefore received priority, and, in fact the P-40 was subsequently to to prove itself an excellent ground attack weapon."

This was written or at least published in 1957. It does play rather fast and loose with the requirements for the P-40. The XP-40 was built to compete in the 1939 fighter trials held in Jan 1939. The XP-39 missed. Several modified P-36s and P-35s and a few others showed up. The order for the P-40 for over 500 planes was placed in April of 1939.
Now in the Spring of 1939 nobody, anywhere in the world, had any prospects of conducting high altitude attacks against anybody else.
The idea that a plane armed with a pair of cowl mounted .50 cal guns (the .30s in the wing came later) and no (or a few 20lb bombs) was much use for coastal defense (anti ship) or ground attack is pretty ludicrous.
P-40 was a P-36 with a new engine. From the firewall back it was the same airplane so I guess the P-36 was designed for ground support or low level work?
BTW it took another year and half for armor or protected fuel tanks to show up.

In the next paragraph we find;
"Unfortunately, the rated altitude of the Allison engine was only some 12,000ft, rendering combat above 15,000ft a completely impractical proposition."
This also plays fast and loose with the timeline and any connection with the original requirements or design goals of 1938-39.
In April 1939 the Allison engine was best high altitude engine the Army was likely to get in quantity in 1940.
The Engine was rated at 1040hp at 14,300ft (?) at that time. Which is about 2000ft lower than the Merlin III of that time but better than any other engine in 1939.

Unfortunately things changed. Army wanted 1090hp and the Allison could do it, but only around 1000ft lower, it would still make 1040hp at the original altitude.
The engine used in the P-40E was rated at 1150hp at 12,000ft or just under. However it would still make 1040hp just over 14,000ft.
The next change came with the addition of the .30 cal guns. At first 2 but very soon 4 guns (1/2 the armament of the British fighters but with more ammo) while still keeping the .50 cal guns, which weighed about as much as 6 British .303 guns.
Next change was the addition of armor and protected tanks. This is the fall of 1940.
The P-40 went from 6787lbs with 370lbs of guns/ammo to,
The P-40B at 7326lbs with 600lbs of guns and ammo and 93lbs of armor to,
The P-40E at 8098lbs with 901lbs of guns/ammo and 109lbs of armor.

P-40E lack of performance at altitude in 1942 had nothing to do with the requirements or design criteria of 1938/early 1940.
It had a lot to do with the US army over-loading the plane with guns/ammo/fuel and not being able to change the engine very much.
Add 1300lbs to Hurricane I (Merlin III) and see what would happen to altitude performance

So far nobody has been able to come up with any USAAC directive or memo or requirement that says the P-40 was intended to used at low altitude only.

The army wanted higher altitude planes, but they estimated they couldn't get them until 1941-42 (turbos, etc) and they needed planes in 1940. Then they gave (or traded production space) to the French and British in 1940 so the US didn't even get most of the planes they originally ordered. Allison was frantically trying to increase production while trying to come up with improved models. No war in Europe in 1939 might mean faster development of higher altitude versions and smaller number of of -33 and -39 engines?

I really wanted to give this very fine post a "winner", but at the end Shortround wrote that the army wanted higher altitude aircraft.
Personally, I would broaden that statement and change "altitude" to "performance".
Thus, I only gave it an "agree" (sorry Shortround. Better luck next time )
I think the Army could see the handwriting on the wall, and that handwriting spelled out "400 mph +".
Everyone was passing 350 mph and gaining more speed all the time.
We wanted something to stay competitive and as the world dawned on the 1940's, our entry was the aptly named "P-40".
Shorty's right. It's almost laughable to say that the P-40 was designed as a ground attack craft. That is clearly wrong.
It was a modification to the P-36, to give the plane higher performance.
Part of the reasoning for the switch from the R-1830 to the Allison V12 was less frontal area, which could be seen as higher top speed (the P-40 was already topping 360 mph by the end of 1939, while the P-36 could barely muster 315), quicker acceleration in a dive, and longer range for the same throttle setting (625 miles for the P-36, but 716 for the P-40).
Why would that matter, if the airplane was designed for ground attack (because it wasn't!).
Even Wikipedia states, "The P-40 was conceived as a pursuit aircraft and was agile at low and medium altitudes...".
Where anyone would get the idea that it was designed for ground attack is beyond me.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-36 was a mid-30's design.

Compare it's performance to it's contemporaries: the Hawker Hurricane Mk.I and Bf109B, and you'll find that it was on a par or better in many respects.

btw - at cruise, the P-36's range was well over 700 miles.

 

[MiTasol]

And the so called slug of an aircraft - the P-40 - could out turn most of its contemporaries.

 

[Shortround6]

I will note that the Army had ordered 13 YP-37s (P-36s with turbo Allisons) in Dec 1937, just about 1 1/2 years before they ordered the P-40s. First one showed up in June of 1939, One month after the P-40 order. It and it's 12 brethren showed the wisdom of the Army's decision. The turbos and turbo accessories of the time were NOT ready for squadron service.
That was difference between what the Army wanted and what they had to accept in order to retire the P-26s and P-35s and P-36s while they waited for what they wanted.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

May 1935, Model 75 first flight
September 1935 Bf109 first flight
February 1936 Hurricane first flight
April 1936 model 75B first flight
March 1936 Spitfire first flight
Late 1936/early 1937 first Bf109B production.
March to June 1937, three Y1P-36 accepted
December 1937 first Hurricane production
May 1938 first P-36A production
July 1938 first Spitfire production
late 1938 first Bf109E production (168 by end of year)

After P-35 production ended in August 1938 USAAF fighter production September 1938 to October 1939 was all P-36 types except for the first YP-37 in April and another in October 1939, the XP-38 in October 1939, the XP-40 in December 1938, the XP-41 in March 1939.

The XP-37 was accepted in July 1937.