Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Kevin J]

Not from me. Would have been 'neat' to have some V-1650-3 powered P-40s, but the P-40 never would have had the range or the speed of the Mustang. The P-51 was the plane they needed for the rest of the war in the ETO for sure. And the bottom line is nothing like that happened so speculation is mildly interesting at best.

I'm less interested in "coulda woulda shoulda" kind of stuff and more interested in what actually happened. History is what scratches my itch so to speak. What is nice about this forum is that the tidbits of Aviation History does emerge in these discussions aside from the rest of what goes on. Like that memo on the Allison engined P-51s, that thing is gold. I probably never would have found it. Really helps open up the whole 'overboosting' thing, 70" Hg for 20 minutes without damaging the engine... that is some heavy duty hot rodding!

As far as the P-40 goes, I'd really like to know what the Commonwealth victory claim numbers were. That may that beleagured US fighter shine a bit brighter in the estimation of all those folks who still call it 'obsolete from the start of the war', 'rugged but unmaneuverable' and so forth. If they had 2200 victory claims in USAAF service, how many were there under Commonwealth, plus Russian? Russian numbers might be out of reach for another year or two (unless somebody in here from Russia has some they can translate for us) but I suspect Commonwelath numbers are out there somewhere.

If the Gold Standard is 5950 for the P-51, I'd be very interesting to see just how close the P-40 actually got if you added up all the victory claims from everyone who used it. I think it would be close.

The P-40 was a flawed design, the engine / performance ceiling issue crippled it, but it seemed to knock down a lot of enemy planes in spite of that problem.

S

I think you'll find that the USAAF operated less than half the total number of P-40's that were built and many of them were used as trainers. So, as a guess, look at 4400 victories at least. I don't know if this helps at all for RAAF and RNZAF victories.Pacific Victory Roll - Home

 

[slaterat]

The total of 4950 is an oft quoted victory credit for the Mustang and represents Only US ETO/MTO (and low). The final total of Mustang air victory credits (after claims processed) for US and Commonwealth, for all types and theatres, is ~ 6300

Well you could also add the Fleet Air Arm claims made in Hurricanes, plus whatever claims were made by the Soviets 3000 lend lease Hurricanes, to the 5,871 RAF Hurricane claims, and the number must be pretty close to the Mustangs total claims. Probably hard to verify, maybe someone here has those numbers?

 

[Schweik]

I think you'll find that the USAAF operated less than half the total number of P-40's that were built and many of them were used as trainers. So, as a guess, look at 4400 victories at least. I don't know if this helps at all for RAAF and RNZAF victories.Pacific Victory Roll - Home

yes, I think that is a safe bet.

P-40s became more interesting to me when a bunch of data started coming out 15 or 20 years ago, mostly from Russian and Commonwealth sources that undermined some of the old Tropes about the plane. Some US sources too. There was an Australian author, Russell Brown, who was one of the first to actually check the victory claims against losses and pointed out that many of the experten claims were wildly inflated. Unfortunately his book is hard to find outside of Australia. But Christopher Shores in particular took that concept and ran with it. He has done a lot of hard work particularly in his Mediterranean Air War series, comparing victory claims with actual losses on both sides. Christoph Bergstrom et al has done something similar with Black Cross / Red Star series. Hopefully we will see more of these.

Getting back to your comment, given the large number of P-40s used by the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, RSAF, and Free French (in descending order of impact), and the large number (at least 46 that i know of) of Commonwealth Aces who scored 5 or more of their victories while flying P-40s, I suspect that Commonwealth pilots shot down a large number of planes with them. Similarly if you look at a list of Soviet aces you'll see that a large number of them flew P-40s at one time in their career, some almost exclusively. That site lists 1338 Soviet Aces, a quick count tells me that about 50 flew the P-40 in at least part of their career, including some of their top guys. They had three twice HSU recipients who flew P-40s and at least four quadrouple, and well over twenty double aces on the P-40. And as we know the Soviets had higher-scoring aces than any of the other Allies.

I suspect the actual grand total of P-40 victory claims might be as high as the neighborhood of 5,000.

Whether it's 4,000 or 5,000 though, that would put the P-40 in the top 3 US produced fighters, above the P-38 and P-47. It's already above the F4U and F4F/FM2 which is impressive. Maybe one day the rep of this machine will be a little more realistic. It was a deeply flawed design but also clearly had some significant merit in Air to Air combat. The old Trope that it was a 'rugged but obsolete fighter-bomber' is looking a bit weak.

Of course once this is proven it will start a new debate about actual losses vs. mere claims, but I welcome that too! The facts are much more intriguing than the legends.

S

 

[Schweik]

Well you could also add the Fleet Air Arm claims made in Hurricanes, plus whatever claims were made by the Soviets 3000 lend lease Hurricanes, to the 5,871 RAF Hurricane claims, and the number must be pretty close to the Mustangs total claims. Probably hard to verify, maybe someone here has those numbers?

I doubt you'll find a lot of Hurricane victories in Russia, though probably enough to put the Hurricane over the P-51 number and therefore top of the heap on victory claims. 5871 is impressive all by itself!

Anyone know what the Spit or Yak numbers are?

Or the Axis planes, esp. Ki 43?

S

 

[GrauGeist]

...It was a deeply flawed design but also clearly had some significant merit in Air to Air combat. The old Trope that it was a 'rugged but obsolete fighter-bomber' is looking a bit weak.

The P-40, born from the P-36, was a design embedded in the 1930's. It truly had the aerodynamics of a brick when compared to later aircraft designs of the war. The fact that it soldiered on, across all fronts from the start of the war, to the end, is a testament to Curtiss' design.

 

[Kevin J]

yes, I think that is a safe bet.

P-40s became more interesting to me when a bunch of data started coming out 15 or 20 years ago, mostly from Russian and Commonwealth sources that undermined some of the old Tropes about the plane. Some US sources too. There was an Australian author, Russell Brown, who was one of the first to actually check the victory claims against losses and pointed out that many of the experten claims were wildly inflated. Unfortunately his book is hard to find outside of Australia. But Christopher Shores in particular took that concept and ran with it. He has done a lot of hard work particularly in his Mediterranean Air War series, comparing victory claims with actual losses on both sides. Christoph Bergstrom et al has done something similar with Black Cross / Red Star series. Hopefully we will see more of these.

Getting back to your comment, given the large number of P-40s used by the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF, RSAF, and Free French (in descending order of impact), and the large number (at least 46 that i know of) of Commonwealth Aces who scored 5 or more of their victories while flying P-40s, I suspect that Commonwealth pilots shot down a large number of planes with them. Similarly if you look at a list of Soviet aces you'll see that a large number of them flew P-40s at one time in their career, some almost exclusively. That site lists 1338 Soviet Aces, a quick count tells me that about 50 flew the P-40 in at least part of their career, including some of their top guys. They had three twice HSU recipients who flew P-40s and at least four quadrouple, and well over twenty double aces on the P-40. And as we know the Soviets had higher-scoring aces than any of the other Allies.

I suspect the actual grand total of P-40 victory claims might be as high as the neighborhood of 5,000.

Whether it's 4,000 or 5,000 though, that would put the P-40 in the top 3 US produced fighters, above the P-38 and P-47. It's already above the F4U and F4F/FM2 which is impressive. Maybe one day the rep of this machine will be a little more realistic. It was a deeply flawed design but also clearly had some significant merit in Air to Air combat. The old Trope that it was a 'rugged but obsolete fighter-bomber' is looking a bit weak.

Of course once this is proven it will start a new debate about actual losses vs. mere claims, but I welcome that too! The facts are much more intriguing than the legends.

S

As the saying goes "history is written by the victors" and as the Curtis company didn't exist post-war, it certainly wasn't one of them.

 

[drgondog]

Well you could also add the Fleet Air Arm claims made in Hurricanes, plus whatever claims were made by the Soviets 3000 lend lease Hurricanes, to the 5,871 RAF Hurricane claims, and the number must be pretty close to the Mustangs total claims. Probably hard to verify, maybe someone here has those numbers?

So, find them and add them.

 

[swampyankee]

As the saying goes "history is written by the victors" and as the Curtis company didn't exist post-war, it certainly wasn't one of them.

The Curtiss company still exists: Curtiss-Wright Corporation - Company - History.

Of course, it's left the engine business and the airframe business

 

[Stig1207]

The problem with using victory claims as an indication of fighter planes success, is that claiming accuracy varied quite a lot. Taking the list for US claims posted earlier as an example; late war ETO has the most accurate Allied claiming, which is good news for the P-51 and P-47 as the large proportion of their victories were scored in this theater. However, the ETO is an outlier, claiming accuracy being less, even much less, in the other theaters.
It's difficult to say much about the RAF/ CW claiming accuracy, though the late war ETO accuracy would also apply.
When it comes to the Eastern Front, any claims numbers should be considered more than just 'optimistic'.

 

[P-39 Expert]

60+ P-38 aces in Europe and Mediterranean.

Yep, widely used and certainly appreciated by it's pilots in the Pacific.
But when you factor in cost to build and operate, you could have had twice the P-51As or P-39Ns.
How many of these victories came in the P-38J&L after the Luftwaffe had been defeated in mid-'44?
The P-38J-25 and L were great planes, but they came after the heavy lifting had been done.
Cost too much, too complicated, handling problems, took twice as long for a new pilot to become proficient, and took way too long to develop into a top tier plane. And you froze your ass off at altitude.

 

[Shortround6]

The P-40, born from the P-36, was a design embedded in the 1930's. It truly had the aerodynamics of a brick when compared to later aircraft designs of the war. The fact that it soldiered on, across all fronts from the start of the war, to the end, is a testament to Curtiss' design.

Compared to many of it's contemporaries instead of much later aircraft the P-40 actually did rather well in regards to aerodynamics. It was much faster than the Hurricane II when both used the same engines despite weighing considerably more. It was faster than the 109E despite being much, much larger and heavier (talking about the long nosed P-40 to try to keep the timing right).
The P-40 was heavy sucker and that affected climb but in straight speed it did rather well for it's size (wing area) and weight (induced drag). Again this is for 1930s fighter or very early 1940s, the P-51 and later aircraft changed the playing field considerably.

 

[pbehn]

Ok, I'll bite - I've made my admiration for the Spitfire pretty clear, and the Hurricane was indispensable in the early years of the war. But I certainly would agree they would have been much better off putting those Merlins wasted in any Hurricanes (XX or whatever model) after 1942 in something else... I know the devil is in the details as to what would be most feasible of course.

But rather than debating that pointlessly in circles I'd rather see the total Victory numbers on the Hurricane, maybe it will turn out to have done better post 1941 than I thought it did...

S

Every one would agree with that, but what? If all the Merlins were put into P-40s from the start you have a slightly better P-40 and no Hurricanes. It would be a complete shock for any later plane not to out perform the Hurricane and they did. However it was the ease of production and repair of the Hurricane that meant Germany did not have a free hand anywhere, even to the point of being used as a disposable single use catapult launched fleet defence aircraft.

 

[eagledad]

P-39 Expert

I don't believe that the J-25 and L model P-38s scored that many victories in the ETO/MTO. Most of the victories were scored in earlier models up to the J-15. The pre J model P-38's did quit a bit of heavy lifting. Data from the book "Adorimini A History of the 832nd FG in World War II" by Steve Blake has the first P-38J arriving in the group on March 20th 1944. (page 143) One of the earliest all P-38J mission flown by the 82nd was on June 2nd 1944. There was at least 2 P-38G's lost flying a mission on May 29th 1944. (page 295). Of the 548 victories, the author of the book, credits to the 82nd (page 291) I count 387 credits to the pre J models (through March 20, 1944) with another 2 credited to G's between March 21 through May 29th, with another 52 undetermined by model in the same time frame. At least 70% of the 82nd victories were credited to pilots flying pre J model P-38's. As an aside, when of the first recorded P-38L lost was listed on Nov 7th 1944. FYI

Eagledad

 

[Schweik]

The P-40, born from the P-36, was a design embedded in the 1930's. It truly had the aerodynamics of a brick when compared to later aircraft designs of the war. The fact that it soldiered on, across all fronts from the start of the war, to the end, is a testament to Curtiss' design.

That is the sort of cliche / Trope I've seen written about the P-40 for many years, and is completely meaningless. As Shortround pointed out, for an 'Aerodynamic Brick' it was quite fast on a 1000 hp engine. As fast or faster than all the other 1930's designs like the Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf 109 or A6M.

For a professional assessment of the flying traits of the plane, I encourage you to watch this clip by Jeff Ethel.



He noted that until he flew one, he himself had repeated many of the 'aerodynamics of a brick' type cliches, but having flown one he notes (starting at 09:25 on the video)

"Airplane is a good maneuvering airplane. It's much more maneuverable than a Mustang. Mustang is locked in cement compared to this thing. This is a lot like a Pitt's with an Allison engine on the front. Wonderful ailerons. The first time I did an aileron roll on this thing I hit my head on both sides of the canopy because I was used to the Mustang so I did a full deflection roll. Holy Mackerel that thing really got a hold of me."

13:42

"After years of reading that the P-40 couldn't maneuver, particularly with the Zero, I had come to accept the general opinion that it was outlclassed by almost everything else flying. Sitting here in the cockpit with the controls in my hand, having written a book about the aircraft and having said all those things, the accepted History just isn't accurate. No question it didn't have the top speed and high altitude performance of later fighters, but it did have the best maneuverability of the American fighters, and many pilots particularly in China, preferred it over the Mustang. And it could certainly make diving, slashing attacks as few fighters we had. All I have to do is shove the nose down and I can hit 400 mph in short order."

So I'm pretty confident in his opinion, which matches what I've seen emerging from dozens of Aces who actually flew the plane, as well as the statistics that are coming out including this 'total victory claims' number.

S

 

[pbehn]

Cough cough, the war started on Sept 3rd 1939.

 

[Schweik]

The problem with using victory claims as an indication of fighter planes success, is that claiming accuracy varied quite a lot. Taking the list for US claims posted earlier as an example; late war ETO has the most accurate Allied claiming, which is good news for the P-51 and P-47 as the large proportion of their victories were scored in this theater. However, the ETO is an outlier, claiming accuracy being less, even much less, in the other theaters.
It's difficult to say much about the RAF/ CW claiming accuracy, though the late war ETO accuracy would also apply.
When it comes to the Eastern Front, any claims numbers should be considered more than just 'optimistic'.

This is the expected next wave of excuses, the implication that Allied victory claims are invalid because they overclaimed so much more than the Axis. However this data is emerging, as I already pointed out with numerous specific examples to you in another thread, we can see clearly from the German and Allied records that the Germans overclaimed, sometimes wildly. For example from Shores Mediterranean Air War vol III, Germans overclaimed by 5-1 (on March 23 1943), 7-1 (on March 24) and 5-2 (on March 29) while USAAF claims on the same days were far more accurate.

Even on the Russian Front, it does not look like overclaiming was as wild as has been implied by you and many, many others who can't imagine that the Luftwaffe could be defeated. One wonders how all those 30,000 bf 109s were lost, were Luftwaffe mechanics that bad?

The truth is that generally speaking overclaiming was roughly a constant somewhere around 2-1 or 3-1 depending on the specific time and place. It waxed and waned depending on conditions and verification policies. Obviously it's harder to confirm a victory for a plane shot down in the Ocean. At one point the Soviets instituted a policy that the wreck had to be recovered, and the ID plate of the aircraft located, in order for the claim to be credited.

Pilots had an incentive to claim as many kills as possible, and it was normal for 3 or 4 pilots who had shot at a plane before it went down to assume they were the one who got it (or for each of them to claim a separate victory). This was especially true in the Luftwaffe where the emphasis on 'experten' was so pronounced. But the Air Forces had an interest in knowing how many enemy planes were actually destroyed and took pains to get accurate numbers. The two forces were at odds but balanced out somewhat.

And the actual day to day numbers are coming to light more and more, as in Shores MAW series and you and I have already started to look into that in another thread

S

 

[swampyankee]

Schweik, air forces also have an interest in propaganda, and aces were, to some extent, the automatic box office heroes of the day.

 

[GrauGeist]

That is the sort of cliche / Trope I've seen written about the P-40 for many years, and is completely meaningless. As Shortround pointed out, for an 'Aerodynamic Brick' it was quite fast on a 1000 hp engine. As fast or faster than all the other 1930's designs like the Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf 109 or A6M.

The P-40 in all of it's versions that saw service, did NOT have aerodynamic qualities that benefitted it's performance. It was a very capable aircraft and it's predecessor, the P-36, was a very maneuverable aircraft, well liked by it's pilots.

The P-40 retained much of these traits, however, with it's additional armament, self-sealing tanks, armor, radiator and it's V-12 engine (1,400 pounds versus the P-36's 1,200 pound radial) was still a 1934 design.

Curtiss went to great lengths and spent a great deal of effort to clean it's lines, all of which went no where.

Types like the YP-37:

The XP-42 (one of several iterations):

XP-47:

XP-60A:

XP-60C:

Matter of fact, there were five different types of the XP-60...

The point here, is that the P-40 was strong enough and solid enough that it was able to be a contender in battle. The true "trope" here, is the steadfast belief that it was a world beater by 1942/43. It simply was not, as it's mid-30's design was being surpassed by improved engine and aerodynamic designs.

What gives it impressive victory numbers, is that it's nearly 14,000 airframes participated in every theater across the globe across the span of nearly five years.

 

[fubar57]

I laughed at "trope", toilet paper word of the day, well over used

 

[pbehn]

Claims have very little significance, the worst thing making incorrect claims does is to fool your own side into believing you are doing better than you are.