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

The RAAF received 40 P-40K and 90 P-40M in working order.

75 squadron flew P-40E in New Guinea in 1942, still had them when it returned then converted to P-40N in September 1943.
76 squadron flew P-40E in New Guinea in 1942, came back with P-40M in May 1943 and converted to P-40N while present (February 1945?)
77 squadron flew P-40K when it arrived in New Guinea in February 1943, to P-40M in April 1944, P-40N in July.
78, 80, 82, 84 and 120 (Dutch) squadrons only flew P-40N in combat
86 squadron had P-40M when it went to Merauke Dutch New Guinea in July 1943.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Most of the Tomahawks and many of the early (i.e. P-40D/E) Kittyhawks they got were ones that had already 'seen action' with the British, such as in North Africa, and this no doubt meant that the engine time was already substantially reduced. Some were noticeably 'clapped out' when they arrived.

Click to expand...

No.

Britain reports importing 461 Tomahawks August 1940 to February 1941, another 516 Tomahawks into the Middle East February to September 1941. Britain exported 2 Tomahawks in December 1940, then 26 more in 1941 to the Middle East, while exporting 171 Tomahawks to the USSR August to December 1941. By the looks of things 23 IIa and the rest IIb to the USSR, of the 173 Tomahawks sent to Britain in the final shipments that arrived from the USA December 1940 and January 1941, 129 were sent to the USSR, in other words the low time aircraft., or the ones still packed. The final 49 Tomahawk were sent direct USA to USSR. The Middle East did send some Tomahawks to Turkey, none to the USSR.

The Kittyhawk I were almost entirely sent to the Middle East, again some to Turkey, none to the USSR.

P-40C 167 USAAF, 10 Britain (exported September 1941 to USSR), 16 USSR (exported December 1941), P-40D 22 to USAAF.

Now comes the joy of the P-40E and the P-40E-1, the latter nominally being the export version of the E, P-40E from June 1941 to January 1942 plus a straggler in April 1942 bringing the total to 820 and the 1,500 P-40E-1 from December 1941 to June 1942, their deliveries were subject to lots of changes, official acceptances:

P-40E, 280 to USAAF June to October 1941 and April 1942, 21 to USSR in October 1941 from the first contract, 409 to the USAAF October 1941 to January 1942, 110 to USSR October 1941 to January 1942 from the second contract.

P-40E-1, 444 to Britain January to June 1942, 315 to USAAF December 1941 to May 1942, USSR 708 December 1941 to June 1942, Brazil 6 in March 1942, China 27 in June 1942. So far nothing to indicate any the British ones were sent to the USSR after RAF service.

Midway point of production, P-40E November 1941, P-40E-1 March 1942, E and E-1 combined February 1942.

Deliveries in the US for USSR 314 P-40K, 40 P-40M, 850 P-40N

BobB said:

Running military power for an hour, you'd better be defending your home base or you'll run out of gas on the way home.

Click to expand...

One of those incidents was during a running fight between two P-40s and four Bf 109s, while the former were heading back to base.

Greyman said:

Remember that US fighters didn't have automatic boost control until later, so exceeding Allison's boost guidelines (and by how much) was completely up to the pilot -- whether through negligence, desperation, or ... willful disobedience.

Click to expand...

They had automatic boost control by the P-40K, though this was routinely modified at the squadron level. I believe it was also a wire that could be broken.

varsity07840 said:

The only model that could get close to 3,000 FPM in a climb at low altitude was the original P-40, no suffix, which pre dated the P-40B.

Click to expand...

Jabberwocky said:

The RAAF operated the P-40E, P-40N and Spitfire Vs during 1943-45 in Papua New Guinea.

Click to expand...

They also operated a lot of P-40K and M

Jabberwocky said:

The Spitfires were seen as the premier fighter - and much superior to the P-40E at altitudes above about 15,000 ft. As a result, Spitfires were generally assigned roles as interceptors and flew top cover for bombers/fighter-bombers or roaming escort for bombers.

Click to expand...

Not much escort apparently and the Spitfires rarely got any air to air victories, other than at Darwin, because they were generally not encountering enemy fighters. This wonderful website, which sadly is no longer active so online available via Wayback Machine, lists every victory claim in the Pacific Theater by the RAAF and RNZAF, chronologically, and by aircraft type. You'll notice if you go through it, the majority of air to air claims for both air forces are by P-40s, the only exception being during the RAAF 1st Wing fighting at Darwin and Northern Territories, and over Malaya where it was all Buffalos.

These are the RNZAF claims
(The last RNZAF claim in the Pacific was on February 1944, a P-40 from 18 RNZAF Sqn claimed a Zero.

These are RAAF
https://web.archive.org/web/20200615085720/http://www.pacificvictoryroll.com/page3.htm (Dec 1941- March 1942 - Malaya)
https://web.archive.org/web/20200615085718/http://www.pacificvictoryroll.com/page4.htm (March 1942-April 1942)
https://web.archive.org/web/20200615081506/http://www.pacificvictoryroll.com/page5.htm (May 1942 - April 1943)
https://web.archive.org/web/20200615085347/http://www.pacificvictoryroll.com/page7.htm (May 1943 - June 1943 - this was during the Darwin raids)
https://web.archive.org/web/20200615085627/http://www.pacificvictoryroll.com/page8.htm (July 1943- September 1943 this is still mostly Northern Territories)
https://web.archive.org/web/20200615081726/http://www.pacificvictoryroll.com/page9.htm (September 1943-July 1945)

The last two P-40 claims seems to be a Zero on June 3 1944 and a Judy on June 10 1944, both by 78 RAAF Sqn.

I just have to add, IMO it is a real tragedy that this website went down for whatever reason. It was one of the most thorough, best organized, and best presenting websites on WW2 aviation that I know of. It had everything from the day to day combat stats per above to a large quantity of rare wartime photos, detailed pilot profiles and interviews, unit profiles, aircraft profiles, wartime documents, maps and etc. Does anyone know what happened? if there is any way to revive it I'm good for a few bucks.

Jabberwocky said:

The P-40s were more used in roles at low level intruders, including as intruders, close bomber escorts for mediums (less common for heavies), and as fighter bombers.

Click to expand...

I believe this is a wartime cliche in general about the P-40. They often note it's use as a figher-bomber, which in many cases was more important to the overall effort than fighter combat, but it was the main fighr. As I said, if you go through all the RAAF victory claims in the Pacific in WW2, you'll find the majority by far were made in P-40s / Kittyhawks. The same is true for North Africa.

RAAF also, incidentally, arranged a mock duel between a P-40E and a Spit V, and the P-40E was found able to outrun the Spit at most altitudes and out roll it, though the Spit could out turn it and performed better above 16,000 ft.

Jabberwocky said:

The RAAF did a lot of fighter-bomber operations with P-40s in 1942 through 1945. There are accounts of them operating P-40Ns with four guns and payloads of 1 x 500 and 2 x 300 lb bombs, and P-40Es with as many as 6 x 250 lb or 3 x 500 lb bombs.

Somewhat counter-intuitively, the P-40s were used for standing combat air patrols more than the Spitfires (at least in 1943/1944). The P-40s were seen as too slow to get to 20,000 ft and so needed a bit of a headstart if they were to intercept Japanese bombers at 25,000 ft or above. The Spitfires were seen as a bit fragile with too few spares available to be used up on standing patrols.

Click to expand...

Not counter-intuitive to me . They also flew the majority of escort and figther-sweep missions. This is mainly due to range.

Jabberwocky said:

The RAAF had some notable reliability problems with their Kittyhawks.

The .50s were prone to stoppages. The P-40Es had manual clearing handles in the cockpit so the problem wasn't so bad. However, the 'lightweight' P-40N deleted this feature. The RAAF official history notes that on some missions, Kittyhawks often came home with more guns jammed than working. The issues were attributed to a combination of poor gun heating (already a familiar story with the Hispanos on the RAAF's Spitfires) and the lubricating oil becoming fouled and heavy (likely by the combination of dust, humidity, salt air and the poor heating).

Click to expand...

The issue with gun stoppages seems to have been common with the Spitfires as well, and other Allied aircraft. They changed the gun layout in the P-40K which seems to have resolved most of the issues, with the excpetion that as you noted, some of the P-40N did not have the manual charging handles and the elctrical ones seem to have been unreliable.

Jabberwocky said:

The P-40's electrical system did not get on well with the hot, humid, wet climate of PNG and had a tendency to fail or short out. The instruments, gunsights and lighing system, along with the hydraulics for the landing gear, flaps & trim and automatic propeller govenor on the P-40 were all driven by an electric pump (most other aircraft had a motor driven pump). On the P-40N, only the landing gear had a back-up hand pump, which meant if the electrics stopped working the aircraft would have become incredibly difficult to fly.

P-40E and some P-40Ns had fuel system quirks. The linings of the fuel tanks on P-40Es and some P-40Ns delivered to the RAAF broke down when using high octane fuel. So, lots of RAAF Kittyhawks were plauged with leaky fuel tanks after a certain amount of time.

Click to expand...

That's interesting! I hadn't heard these before.

Admiral Beez said:

Over 330 mph top speed, six .50 cal mgs with cockpit armour, working radios, and competitive agility - a good start.

Click to expand...

At least 350 mph for most models, faster models up to 380 mph

Admiral Beez said:

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bG8kP3TAYBw&pp=ygUMcC00MCB3YXJoYXdr
In early Dec 1941 around 74 Curtiss P-40 Warhawk fighters were stationed at various airfields on the island of Oahu. Give them sufficient warning of the incoming IJN strike so that all/most can get to altitude on an intercept course and we'll see how well the P-40 does. Nagumo's first strike will face six or more ready and briefed formations like the below.

View attachment 759818

Zeros will be tough, especially as the USAAC pilots have no knowledge of its agility, but the Vals and Kates will suffer.

Click to expand...

They did shoot down Zeros at Pearl Harbor, with the tiny number of P-40's that managed to take off and with a P-36. They also shot them down at Darwin quite early on, and in New Guinea.

nuuumannn said:

The P-40 was kept in production, like the Hurricane because it was a rugged and dependable aircraft, even though its performance was lacking by 1943/1944 standards, this is despite continuous improvement through different models. Against Japanese aircraft in the Pacific at that time, P-40s could hold their own as a fighter ground attack aircraft. The RAAF and RNZAF made good use of them and the Aussies had over 800, while the Kiwis received more than 300. Gotta keep Curtiss in business somehow...

Click to expand...

The Hurricane ultimately had a greater impact on the outcome of the war due to it's extremely important role during the Battle of Britain, and fighting in the Battle of France and it's utility in a lot of the other fighting going on around the Mediterranean (including Greece) and Far East / Burma mainly in 1941 and very early 1942.

After 1941 though, the P-40 had a vastly better combat record than the Hurricane, and it in fact replaced the Hurricane as the main air superiority fighter in North Africa by spring of 1942. It continued being used for fighter, as distinct from just fighter-bomber missions well into 1944 in the MTO and the South Pacific, and up to 1945 in the CBI.

jmcalli2 said:

P-40 Performance Tests

View attachment 760533View attachment 760532View attachment 760531

Click to expand...

I have also linked several of these tests for most of the other Kittyhawk / Hawk 87 versions, in this post

Jabberwocky said:

The RAAF operated the P-40E, P-40N and Spitfire Vs during 1943-45 in Papua New Guinea.

Click to expand...

One of the weirdest things to me about the post WW2 history of the P-40 is that only the P-40E and N seem to be remembered, plus AVG Tomahawks. These are the ones that show up most as model kits, in video games, etc. etc.

The 'middle' variants - P-40K, P-40F, P-40L, and P-40M are persistently forgotten. Bot those were the types most important in the war.

The majority of the Tomahawks and early Kittyhawks - P-40B, P-40C, P-40D and E actually went to the British, where they played a critical role just holding the line in the Middle East mainly from late 1941 through the middle of 1942. The E was also important during a brief period for the Americans and Aussies in the very early, desperate fighting in the South Pacific and Burma.

They made a vast number of P-40N, but most of these were actually used in training units. They also had a variety of manufacturing problems with the later built P-40N because of issues going on at Curtiss. The ones that did fight were often mainly being used as fighter bombers (exclusively so by the RAF, mainly in Italy), though they were still being used as fighters by US units in India and by the Aussies and New Zealanders into 1944.

But the key middle part of the war, where 'holding the line' turned into 'pushing the Axis back' - from mid 1942 through 1943 - was fought largely by the P-40F & L by the Americans in the MTO, P-40 F, L and K for the RAF in North Africa, and P-40K and M in the Pacific by both the Aussies and the Americans (along with P-40F/L in the 18th FG). The P-40K was also one of the most important types for the Soviets, and most of their P-40 aces flew it.

These middle models had a substantial performance edge over the earlier types and were more mechanically reliable as well.

The P-40K had the best low altitude performance by far of any P-40 type and was allowed to boost to 60" officially, in the manual, which gives 1,570 hp. It also had a different gun installation which eliminated most of the jamming problems, which was continued with subsequent types going forward, and had either a tail fin, or a lengthened fuselage (by 3') which improved stability at very high speeds. This was also the case with half of the F and all of the L, M and N models.
The P-40F and L could operate at 20,000' comfortably, could make ~370 mph and had two-speed superchargers. Both were routinely flown at high boost, and had about 1,400 hp. From mid- 1942 these were the only two P-40 variants that could routinely contend with the later model Bf-109 on an equal footing, at least in the Med (in terms of outcomes). The Russians did also seem to have success with the P-40K, but that was mostly fighting at a lower altitude.
The P-40M had a critical altitude 5000' higher than the P-40E or K, though it could not be boosted as high down low.

It may not sound like a lot of aircraft, they only made about 1,500 P-40F, 600 P-40K etc., but these were making up the squadrons very much at the tip of the spear during the turning point of the war in multiple Theaters.

In addition to the P-40K which were issued, many of the surviving P-40E were basically converted to P-40K in the field so to speak, including by the Australians, when they replaced the V-1710-39 engines with the V-1710-73 of the P-40Ks, and replaced the gun installation with the P-40K type.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

Not much escort apparently and the Spitfires rarely got any air to air victories, other than at Darwin, because they were generally not encountering enemy fighters.
....

As I said, if you go through all the RAAF victory claims in the Pacific in WW2, you'll find the majority by far were made in P-40s / Kittyhawks.

Click to expand...

I think the Spifire's role when compared to that of the P-40's was the primary reason behind the Spitfire's lack of claims. P-40s were simply that much more likely to encounter enemy opposition. That and the larger numbers of P-40 squadrons operating.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

The issue with gun stoppages seems to have been common with the Spitfires as well, and other Allied aircraft.

Click to expand...

Gun stoppages were an issue everywhere, to a greater or lesser degress. And they varied wildly from type to type and theater to theater.

However, the M2 Browning was generally considered a reliable weapon. So it surprised me to read in the RAAF official history about the air war against Japan to read about stoppage issues with the Brownings in the P-40. There's one reference to a squadron coming home after a ground attack mission with 41 of their guns unable to fire. As someone who had spent some time researching the topic of gun/cannon reliability and usually, that really stuck out. And the causes - inadequate or absent gun heating, congealed lubricants and dry/dusty conditions - reads exactly like a rehash of the Spitfire's problems in 1943.

On reliability generally, the RAAF experienced Hispano jam/stoppage every 180 to 200 rounds with their Spitfires in early 1943, improving to about 1 in 400 rounds by the end of the year. That compares to about 1 in 650 rounds for the Hispanos in the Beaufighter in the same area. At the same time, the RAF in the ETO were experiencing stoppages at a rate of about 1 in 600 rounds. By 1944/1945, this was 1 in 1560 rounds.

There's a story - which may be true or may be false - about Clive Caldwell having a Spitfire refitted with .50s recoverd from a crashed P-40. Reportedly due to his disgust with the Hispano's lack of reliability over Darwin. Only to have the brass get upset and ordering the aircraft returned to standard.

Jabberwocky said:

I think the Spifire's role when compared to that of the P-40's was the primary reason behind the Spitfire's lack of claims. P-40s were simply that much more likely to encounter enemy opposition. That and the larger numbers of P-40 squadrons operating.

Click to expand...

I agree, and that came down to range. And also partly to politics. By the time RAAF go longer ranged Spit VIII, MacArthur for whatever reason had kind of relegated them to rear areas and kept them mostly out of the Philippines campaign for example. The Allied high command was wasting those fine fighters on strafing and fighter bomber attacks against Japanese infantry stuck on bypassed islands. This in part is what led to the famous Morotai Mutiny.

Jabberwocky said:

Gun stoppages were an issue everywhere, to a greater or lesser degress. And they varied wildly from type to type and theater to theater.

However, the M2 Browning was generally considered a reliable weapon. So it surprised me to read in the RAAF official history about the air war against Japan to read about stoppage issues with the Brownings in the P-40. There's one reference to a squadron coming home after a ground attack mission with 41 of their guns unable to fire. As someone who had spent some time researching the topic of gun/cannon reliability and usually, that really stuck out. And the causes - inadequate or absent gun heating, congealed lubricants and dry/dusty conditions - reads exactly like a rehash of the Spitfire's problems in 1943.

Click to expand...

Those may have all been issues, but there was nothing unique about gun stoppages with the M2. Like all machine guns, an M2 will definitely jam when you shoot enough rounds through it, and this is doubly true when mounted in an aircraft. I think the main problem with the M2s in US made fighters was the configuration of the guns, particularly when firing them while pulling G. They had nearly identical issues in China, Burma, and also in the Middle East. They seemed to be largely resolved in mid 1942 with the gun installation in the P-40K and subsequent versions as I mentioned. I don't remember the precise details of what the change was exactly, maybe Shortround6 knows.

They also had similar problems with the Wildcats and early P-51s IIRC.

Jabberwocky said:

On reliability generally, the RAAF experienced Hispano jam/stoppage every 180 to 200 rounds with their Spitfires in early 1943, improving to about 1 in 400 rounds by the end of the year. That compares to about 1 in 650 rounds for the Hispanos in the Beaufighter in the same area. At the same time, the RAF in the ETO were experiencing stoppages at a rate of about 1 in 600 rounds. By 1944/1945, this was 1 in 1560 rounds.

Click to expand...

I think in Australia there was also a serious issue with the local 20mm ammunition manufacturing, which required gunners and helpers to sift through every round before it got put into a belt. Eventually they corrected many of these problems.

Jabberwocky said:

There's a story - which may be true or may be false - about Clive Caldwell having a Spitfire refitted with .50s recoverd from a crashed P-40. Reportedly due to his disgust with the Hispano's lack of reliability over Darwin. Only to have the brass get upset and ordering the aircraft returned to standard.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me at all. Caldwell was a 'think outside the box' kind of guy. He did things like that repeatedly in the Middle East. According to some he was the first one to suggest using the P-40s as fighter-bombers with heavier bombs (which nobody was sure at the time they could carry). This due to frustration at escorting very slow-flying Blenheims which left his fighters as sitting ducks. He also came up with his own training system of shooting at shadows of other planes, since while he was out there they basically had no gunnery training. The DAF adopted this as the main gunnery training method for a while.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

There was a smallish internal tank in the fuselage, behind the pilot, I forgot how many gallons. It was often not filled during shorter missions, because it posed some of the same stability problems as the fuselage tank in the P-51. If it was filled (either for a longer ranged mission or an anticipated long-duration patrol flight) they would try to use that fuel first, even before the external tank.

The key factor though was that they would rarely fight with that tank full.

Click to expand...

The tank changed a bit depending on model. However it was fair sized tank. For the P-40D & E the tanks were (in US gallons)
Forward tank (reserve) 32 gal
rear wing tank (main) 51 gal
Fuselage tank ..............62.5 gal
However it was filled with 37 gallons to get the "normal" 120 gal load. If it was not filled the P-40 had less range than a Spitfire.
The Extra 25.5 gallons didn't seem to cause much problem with the CG, this depended on the exact model of the P-40.
Then you had the 52 gal belly tank.

The P-36/Hawk 75 had a real CG problem with the fuselage tank being full. The P-40s with the longer, heavier (with radiators) Allison had less problem with the Fuselage tank being full. Not saying the extra fuel didn't hurt climb but at least there were few, if any warnings about the CG. In fact the "stripper" models had the Forward (reserve ) tank taken out and they flew on the main and fuselage tanks.
Merlin P-40s changed up the fuel use system. They pretty much emptied the reserve tank pretty much early in the mission and kept around 25 gallons in the fuselage tank as the "reserve" and landing tank. They were using the fuel to balance the Heavier Merlin engine.

Now what the ideal fuel load for going into combat was???
If you are using 57-60in of WEP you are burning close to 3 gallons a minute.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

This means with the external tank? Maybe that is what the Wikipedia numbers are based on.

Click to expand...

Yes it means the external tank. If the pilots kept the tank due to supply problems (few if any at the base?) the speed and climb both took a hit even if empty.

There was a 52 gallon external tank then a 75 gallon and then some others.

Do you know anything about the gun installation in the later model Kittyhawks? I know I have it in one of my books somewhere but I'll have to go looking...

At some point in the M2 Browning history (it may have been when they upped the rate of fire, it may have been a bit later) they changed the cam track in the bolt/carrier that the feed pawl actuator ran in.

The gun can be changed from left to right feed. As the bolt moved back and forth the (in this photo upper end of the lever)

lever moved back and forth and the lower end (actually forward end with the cover closed) engaged the feed block and moved it side to side.

In any case by changing the cam track and the hinge of the lever they doubled belt pull force (pounds of force exerted on the belt) which went a ways into getting the belts to feed when pulling Gs or in adverse conditions, However, some of the feeds did require moving a fair amount of weight a number of feet and problems did crop up. There were reasons those B-26 top turrets had electric motors to help get the ammo to guns from boxes below the gunners butt.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

There was a 52 gallon external tank then a 75 gallon and then some others.

Click to expand...

Most of the over 75 gallon tanks were ferry tanks, sometimes they used a pair of tanks out on the wings? Sometimes the guns were removed for ferrying.
Some of the late version P-40s could use up a fair amount of runway when loaded. A Tomahawk needed around 50% more runway than an early Spitfire. The P-40 never got much of an increase in T-O power. 1040hp to 1325hp certainly helped but the Spit went from 880hp (MK I) to 1185-1230hp on the MK V.

I guess that is another thing I need to go look up, but I thought the 75 gallon was the standard P-40 drop tank that ended up being adopted for so many other planes...?

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

I guess that is another thing I need to go look up, but I thought the 75 gallon was the standard P-40 drop tank that ended up being adopted for so many other planes...?


View attachment 760603

Click to expand...

I am not sure if the P-40 didn't adopt the belly tank from the P-39?
A 1944 P-40N manual lists the 52 gallon tank, 75 gal tank and a 170 gallon tank up until airframe AF42-104904, The early P-40N doesn't have the forward wing tank.
AF42-104905 marks the change over/back to the 3 internal tanks and now the chart only shows a 150 gal belly tank.

The Tomahawk/P-40C introduced the 52 gallon tank and the 52 gal tank pretty much standard right through the P-40N as noted above. I Know that the 75 gal tank showed up some time in 1942 but it's source may be from the P-39?
Some data tables show the P-40F with just the 52 gal tank US or 43 gal imp, but the P-40K having 43 gal imp, 62 gal imp and 83 gal imp. These may be Australian data sheets so use of these tanks in NA maybe questionable?

A March 1943/revised June 1943 for the P-40F/L shows the 52 US gal and 75 US gallon drop tanks and 150 US gal tank listed in the text but only the first two are on the chart/drawing. A single 170 US gal ferry tank is listed in an appendix.
Since this manual is almost a year after the P-40F went into service when some of these tanks showed up?????

Jabberwocky said:

There's a story - which may be true or may be false - about Clive Caldwell having a Spitfire refitted with .50s recoverd from a crashed P-40. Reportedly due to his disgust with the Hispano's lack of reliability over Darwin. Only to have the brass get upset and ordering the aircraft returned to standard.

Click to expand...

It's important to remember that the 20mm ammunition used over Darwin was Australian made and woefully out of spec as it was made in a brand new factory and rushed into service before the quality control standards were in place.

Wild_Bill_Kelso said:

I think in Australia there was also a serious issue with the local 20mm ammunition manufacturing, which required gunners and helpers to sift through every round before it got put into a belt. Eventually they corrected many of these problems.

Click to expand...

I not sure if Australia was manufacturing 20mm ammunition at that point (1943).

In the Australian official war history, there are references to plans for 20mm ammunition production in early 1942 and then a reference to materials shortages delaying production by up to 18 months. But nothing on whether any rounds were actually delivered. The only sources I can find for 20mm ammunition (Hispano and Oerlikon/Polsten) used by the RAAF and RAN are rounds from the US, UK and Canada.

I do know that the RAAF had trouble with some batches of US 20mm ammunition that made their way to in Darwin. The US ammunition looked better - brass was much cleaner and brighter than that of UK rounds - but there were some problems with primers. The RAF reported similar issues in Malta.

Jabberwocky said:

I not sure if Australia was manufacturing 20mm ammunition at that point (1943).

Click to expand...

St Mary's in Sydney.