How good a plane was the P-40, really?

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Robert DeHaven, 49th FG Ace with 10 victories on the P-40 (through Jan 1944), and then got four more on P-38s, said the following:

"[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight."

Click to expand...

Nice quote. Makes sense.

Exactly - once Allied pilots learned the KI-43 and A6M's weaknesses, the engage & fight profile changed in the Allied pilot's favor.

But that learning curve was a steep one.

I think it took a while to figure all that out though.

Clearly the "hit and run" / "boom and zoom" tactic was not as simple or cut and dry as is often implied when you read about it. Planes like P-40, Spitfire, Hurricane, Wildcat, were maneuverable enough that they could turn with some Japanese planes, to a point. They just had to play to their own strengths. It took time to determine what the limitations of the enemy planes were. Very experienced pilots like DeHaven could bend the rules a bit more, just making sure to keep speed up.

Interestingly, both the A6M and the Bf 109 had similar traits of locking up in roll a bit at high speeds. They ended up only being able to roll in one direction above a certain speed.

So there was a standard escape maneuver (or a series of them) used by P-40 pilots both in the med and the Pacific / CBI, and I think pretty similarly, by Wildcat, P-47, P-51, Corsair, Spitfire and maybe Hurricane pilots too, namely to do an outside roll or split S into a steep dive, then roll opposite direction to the enemy fighter's torque (I forget if that was right or left for Bf 109 and A6M) and then skid or pull just a little bit of elevator, roll some more, skid or pull a bit more (this is to throw off shooting when the enemy fighter might still be pretty close), and then pull out at high speed, on a different trajectory. Then extend and come back at them.

This could be risky though because the Ki-43 and the MC 202 did not have quite the same problem with torque at high speed. The Germans also flew finger-four and had good radios, so you were never only worrying about the plane you see, there was always a good chance of another (or three more) that was coming for you too, and often at very high closing speed.

By the time they figured out overboosting though, below 10,000' the P-40s could definitely pour on the coal, and that helped a lot with both escape maneuver and followup / counter attacks.

Incidentally DeHaven's victory claims are mostly confirmed by Axis records. His second to last victory on Jan 23, 1944 for example was against a Ki-43 flown by Captain Shigeo Nongo, 15 victory ace, XO of 59th Sentai and commander of the 2nd Chutai, who was killed in action. His loss was a major blow to morale, as he was a popular leader, and it is recorded in the Osprey Ki-43 Aces book I've been summarizing in the Ki-43 thread.

GrauGeist said:

Exactly - once Allied pilots learned the KI-43 and A6M's weaknesses, the engage & fight profile changed in the Allied pilot's favor.

But that learning curve was a steep one.

Click to expand...

yes, steep and "unevenly distributed". It really required a lot of self discipline and there were many nuances and variations to contend with.

It's clear that both the A6M and the Ki-43 were still very dangerous opponents, even with the Thach Weave and the hit and run tactics, well into 1944.

The Hellcat was a big part of breaking them, but as I've learned, it seems like the B-24 and the SBD may have been more important. SBD for sinking carriers, B-24 for pulverizing airfields. They did the same thing in Tunisia, incidentally.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

yes, steep and "unevenly distributed". It really required a lot of self discipline and there were many nuances and variations to contend with.

It's clear that both the A6M and the Ki-43 were still very dangerous opponents, even with the Thach Weave and the hit and run tactics, well into 1944.

The Hellcat was a big part of breaking them [...]

Click to expand...

... and to your point, even late in the war the A6M was still a dangerous opponent for the F6F (and Corsair) in good hands.

Thumpalumpacus said:

... and to your point, even late in the war the A6M was still a dangerous opponent for the F6F (and Corsair) in good hands.

Click to expand...

Nishizawa would be at the head of the class for the A6M well into 1944.

GrauGeist said:

Nishizawa would be at the head of the class for the A6M well into 1944.

Click to expand...

Badasses gonna bad.

Even a badass like DeHaven had to be worried going out, because you never knew who you were going to run into

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Even a badass like DeHaven had to be worried going out, because you never knew who you were going to run into

Click to expand...

<softly singing some Steely Dan>

Throw out your gold teeth and see how they roll
The answer they reveal:
life is unreal

The fires I fought never aimed at me, but I learned long ago that my number could come up at any time; I stood my turn at guard over a brother firedog's casket. I'm sure any of the many actual combat veterans here (I'm not one) can say about the same thing, more or less.

And no doubt many of the pilots we talk about here said the same thing, in letters to their wives, to their diaries, or in the privacy of their thoughts.

One never knows when their number is up - Nishizawa, one of the most dangerous pilots of the Pacific, was killed as a passenger aboard a transport.

GrauGeist said:

One never knows when their number is up - Nishizawa, one of the most dangerous pilots of the Pacific, was killed as a passenger aboard a transport.

Click to expand...

Mazactly. That was my first thought when I read your mention of him -- he died a passenger. His number was up. Or, from a song from Rush, the odds get even.

I can only imagine his reaction as the KI-49 came under attack by F6Fs.

Especially since he wanted to die like Samurai.

Like Yamamoto in his G4M...

Both situations were tragic for them both, but unlike Yamamoto, Nishizawa knew he could have fought back on equal terms - if only he had his A6M.

On this same note, just imagine if Nishizawa was one of Yamamoto's escorts that day...

I remember Werner Moelders died as a passenger.
An ex father in law told of Dick Bong as a B-17 passenger going on leave asked to come up front so he could see out. Seems if he couldn't see out, he would be sick.

P-40N owner, Mike Dillon, wrote about a mock dogfight with Bill Fornof's P-51D in the January 1969 Air Progress magazine. "It takes a while to figure why the P-51 ever replaced the P-40 as a combat machine. However... our contest proved only what all good fighter pilots have always known: you can't fight the other man's fight and win. The Warhawk, a ton lighter and with a high-lift wing, is a turning piece of machinery. The close-in fight was its bag. In combat, a P-51 pilot who knew his machine would never think of attacking such an adversary without 400 mph plus on the airspeed." After swapping airplanes, Dillon wrote about flying the P-51. "I've always thought of the 51 as the best of all fighters and am surprised to find it inferior in all measures-except speed-to the P-40. It doesn't roll as fast, it stalls at only 4-3/4 G's at 250 mph, and it is heavier on the controls. But in speed, there is no comparison. The Mustang's laminar flow wing works like magic. With climb power, just lower the nose a few degrees and the P-51 walks right on past 450 mph."

He wasn't flying at 25,000 ft.

Greg Boeser said:

He wasn't flying at 25,000 ft.

Click to expand...

Not over 10,000. P-51 control forces and maneuverability don't become better at 25K. Read what the man who flew them said. Summary: the P-40 is a better dogfighter but won't win if the P-51 pilot is competent and uses his airplanes strengths. Another 1960's warbird owner, Bill Ross, said that the Spitfire was a better sport plane and the P-51 was a better warplane. Dogfighting isn't everything, it's just one tool.

BobB said:

P-40N owner, Mike Dillon, wrote about a mock dogfight with Bill Fornof's P-51D in the January 1969 Air Progress magazine. "It takes a while to figure why the P-51 ever replaced the P-40 as a combat machine. However... our contest proved only what all good fighter pilots have always known: you can't fight the other man's fight and win. The Warhawk, a ton lighter and with a high-lift wing, is a turning piece of machinery. The close-in fight was its bag. In combat, a P-51 pilot who knew his machine would never think of attacking such an adversary without 400 mph plus on the airspeed." After swapping airplanes, Dillon wrote about flying the P-51. "I've always thought of the 51 as the best of all fighters and am surprised to find it inferior in all measures-except speed-to the P-40. It doesn't roll as fast, it stalls at only 4-3/4 G's at 250 mph, and it is heavier on the controls. But in speed, there is no comparison. The Mustang's laminar flow wing works like magic. With climb power, just lower the nose a few degrees and the P-51 walks right on past 450 mph."

Click to expand...

The P-51D didnt replace the P-40N or any other version of the P-40. The British tried the P-40 in the tactical recon role and it couldnt do it, the Mustang Mk I could and did until the end of the war. Rate of roll is a technical discussion, it has been posted here that many post war P-51s were and are rigged with a different aileron maximum deflection to that used in combat in WW2. By the time the P-51D was introduced, mid 1944, which theatre would a P-40 be useful in?

pbehn said:

The P-51D didnt replace the P-40N or any other version of the P-40. The British tried the P-40 in the tactical recon role and it couldnt do it, the Mustang Mk I could and did until the end of the war. Rate of roll is a technical discussion, it has been posted here that many post war P-51s were and are rigged with a different aileron maximum deflection to that used in combat in WW2. By the time the P-51D was introduced, mid 1944, which theatre would a P-40 be useful in?

Click to expand...

I have read that the P-51, due to its more extensive cooling system, was more vulnerable to damage, whereas the P-40, with the radiator mounted directly under the engine, was less vulnerable.