Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[Schweik]

Thanks for producing an individual anecdote to prove your point, or were you proving mine?

I don't claim to prove anything. I am pointing out that:

1) Some anecdotes are 'weighted' a bit more than others in my book, because as I already noted, it is the nature of fighter combat that a few key people did make a difference, but...
2) ... the main / broader point is that I wouldn't just have a filter that said "anecdotes are bad - ignore" or "anecdotes are good - they trump all other data". Rather, I think if you look at multiple anecdotes and see if you can detect a pattern which can be compared with other data to form a picture.

With regard to the P-40, I've read descriptions of the aircraft from almost all of the high scoring aces who flew the type. In North Africa, the CBI, the Pacific and the Russian Front. The majority of the aces I can find interviews with, while well aware of the flaws of the P-40, noted that it was well capable of shooting down the best enemy fighters they faced: Bf 109s, MC 202, Fw 190, Ki-43, and A6M (something they proved personally.)

Let me put it this way - do you think Erwin Rommels opinion on how the Pz III performed in warfare in North Africa would be significant or not?

So yes I do think anecdotes do matter, even if they are difficult to precisely quantify, along with day by day analysis of victories vs losses reported, military and corporate memos, the overall victory claim numbers, the commentary of German, Italian and Japanese pilots (who were quite mixed on their opinion, but mostly dismissive) and so on, all add up to a big picture.

YMMV

S

 

[pbehn]

I don't claim to prove anything. I am pointing out that:

1) Some anecdotes are 'weighted' a bit more than others in my book, because as I already noted, it is the nature of fighter combat that a few key people did make a difference, but...
2) ... the main / broader point is that I wouldn't just have a filter that said "anecdotes are bad - ignore" or "anecdotes are good - they trump all other data". Rather, I think if you look at multiple anecdotes and see if you can detect a pattern which can be compared with other date to form a picture.

With regard to the P-40, I've read descriptions of the aircraft from almost all of the high scoring aces who flew the type. In North Africa, the CBI, the Pacific and the Russian Front. The majority of the aces I can find interviews with, while well aware of the flaws of the P-40, noted that it was well capable of shooting down the best enemy fighters they faced: Bf 109s, MC 202, Fw 190, Ki-43, and A6M (something they proved personally.)

So yes I do think that matters, along with Shores day by day analysis, military and corporate memos, the overall victory claim numbers, the commentary of German, Italian and Japanese pilots (who were quite mixed on their opinion, but mostly dismissive) and so on, all add up to a big picture.

YMMV

S

Production ceased in 1944 as with the Hurricane. Everything else is whataboutery,

 

[Schweik]

Production ceased in 1944 as with the Hurricane. Everything else is whataboutery,

No, I don't agree, and I don't buy that type of argument. I wouldn't say the P-51 was a crap plane because the MiG 15 eventually came along.

By 1944, they were still using P-40s in combat and still scoring victories with them, in fact all the way until 1945. That didn't mean it was still one of the best types, certainly it was long in the teeth by 1944. But I would say the fact that a pilot could still survive in that environment in 1945 does suggest that it was still in the game, so to speak.

I've tried pretty patiently to explain my perspective, perhaps a bit too much, but you still seem pretty bitter about it. I guess we'll both just have to live with that mate.

In the meantime maybe other folks reading the thread will get something out whatever I post.

S

 

[pbehn]

I've tried pretty patiently to explain my perspective, perhaps a bit too much, but you still seem pretty bitter about it. I guess we'll both just have to live with that mate.
S

I think you consider every other poster here in need of education, especially from you. I have been posting here but more importantly reading posts here for five years. Your perspective seems to be that you are right, because you are better read. On every issue you switch the goal posts so that your production numbers or claims or kill ratios or performance metric, or telling anecdote carries the discussion in your favour. Well it doesn't and it is boring.

 

[GrauGeist]

...In the meantime maybe other folks reading the thread will get something out whatever I post.

I'm afraid that what other folks are gathering from your posts may not be what you had in mind...

 

[Schweik]

I think you consider every other poster here in need of education, especially from you. I have been posting here but more importantly reading posts here for five years. Your perspective seems to be that you are right, because you are better read. On every issue you switch the goal posts so that your production numbers or claims or kill ratios or performance metric, or telling anecdote carries the discussion in your favour. Well it doesn't and it is boring.

This is the sequence of events: some other people were talking about kill numbers for the mustang and other types in the context of the main thread subject. I googled mustang ww2 victories and found that site with the totals. Noticed it matched some other numbers I had so I posted it. People had been talking about numbers, I figured this would add to the debate.

All seemed to be fine until me and some other guy commented on what some of the implications were regarding the P-40, then suddenly you and one or two others start making snarky posts. I get challenged on numerous things and I replied defending my position.

I never claimed to have the last word on anything. All I have is whatever data I can find, and my opinion, take it or leave it.

The rest of the above is all you breh. You ought to ask yourself why you are so bent out of shape. It's just a bunch of guys on a Sunday yakking about airplanes from 70 years ago, and I've been posting data to the thread. To me all the angst is what is boring.

S

 

[Schweik]

I'm afraid that what other folks are gathering from your posts may not be what you had in mind...

Right back at you

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you yes, yes they did. If you look at a P-40B/C and a late model P-40K or P-40F and can't tell that there are substantial aerodynamic differences then you are not trying hard enough.

I'm no engineer, and yes I know they had the same wing (why wouldn't they- it was a very good wing design) but I am aware of how little it takes to actually affect aerodynamics.

If you think the changes in aerodynamics were substantial then you are trying too hard.

Main difference between the P-40C and the D/E was they changed the reduction gear which moved the propeller and thrust line up 6 inches. This might be substantial. It might not. However the radiator and oil coolers stayed in the same place (they were not lowered). Airflow through the radiator/oil cooler is governed by the exit flaps, not the size of the intake/s. Cross section of the engine cowl did not change. Actual effect of the different nose shape is?

Report on the P-40B called for a speed at 15,000ft of 306mph at 2280rpm using 698hp while weighing (or taking off at) 6833lbs.
Report on the P-40D called for a speed at 15,175ft of 307.5mph at 2280rpm using 725hp while weighing (or taking off at) 7740lbs.

Actual engine power is unknown as the power is from charts based on ground running in a test house. They had no way of measuring power in flight. There were minor variances in the engines. Now the question is does the so called more streamline nose on the older plane really help? the D has to fly with slightly more incidence on the wing (angle of attack) so support the extra 900lbs at the same speed and that raises drag.

Aerodynamic difference between a D/E and the later versions is pretty much the surface drag of the 20 in fuselage extension. The extended fuselage did make the plane more stable in dives and required less rudder to maintain "trim" in a high speed dive.

As far as the difference between the Allison versions and the Merlin versions go, you are kidding right?
that is like saying the 109 with tropical filter had different aerodynamics

Than a non filter 109.

There were greater differences between the P-40E and F than the aerodynamics of the carburetor inlet scoop.
The Merlin engine was enough heavier that the order of use of the fuel in the internal tanks was changed to keep around 200lbs of fuel in the behind the seat tank to help maintain the CG. With the fuel in the rear tank the CG may have been the same as the E but as the weight is more spread out (further from CG?) the initial response to elevator movement may have been a bit slower.

There are a lot of other planes that changed external shape a lot more than the P-40. And none of the changes to the P-40 (at least production ones) were in the quest for higher speed.

 

[pbehn]

This is the sequence of events: some other people were talking about kill numbers for the mustang and other types in the context of the main thread subject. I googled mustang ww2 victories and found that site with the totals. Noticed it matched some other numbers I had so I posted it. People had been talking about numbers, I figured this would add to the debate.

All seemed to be fine until me and some other guy commented on what some of the implications were regarding the P-40, then suddenly you and one or two others start making snarky posts. I get challenged on numerous things and I replied defending my position.

I never claimed to have the last word on anything. All I have is whatever data I can find, and my opinion, take it or leave it.

The rest of the above is all you breh. You ought to ask yourself why you are so bent out of shape. It's just a bunch of guys on a Sunday yakking about airplanes from 70 years ago, and I've been posting data to the thread. To me all the angst is what is boring.

S

I have been reading the posts and not getting involved mainly because your posts were so esoteric and verbose that they said everything and nothing, mainly just moving the air and thinking out aloud. Even this evening my comment about Dowding/Park and Leigh Mallory went completely over your head, it was much more than use of looser formations like "finger fours". Park won the Battle of Britain and the Battle of Malta, Leigh Mallory was a disaster when "leaning towards France". That is a well known historical fact, you cannot discuss loss rates in those battles without reference to that, but you did, that is when I got involved. I am in no way "bent out of shape" perhaps it is the idea that more data will give a truth previously undiscovered is where we differ.

 

[GrauGeist]

This is the sequence of events: some other people were talking about kill numbers for the mustang and other types in the context of the main thread subject. I googled mustang ww2 victories and found that site with the totals. Noticed it matched some other numbers I had so I posted it. People had been talking about numbers, I figured this would add to the debate.

All seemed to be fine until me and some other guy commented on what some of the implications were regarding the P-40, then suddenly you and one or two others start making snarky posts. I get challenged on numerous things and I replied defending my position.

I never claimed to have the last word on anything. All I have is whatever data I can find, and my opinion, take it or leave it.

The rest of the above is all you breh. You ought to ask yourself why you are so bent out of shape. It's just a bunch of guys on a Sunday yakking about airplanes from 70 years ago, and I've been posting data to the thread. To me all the angst is what is boring.

S

But you aren't posting data, you are posting opinion (as you mentioned) and fractured data backed by some pilot's observations.

Add to this, the attitude with which it's being presented: some guys yakking about planes - as if you were the absolute authority (which you are not) on this subject.

No one here's bent out of shape, except for yourself, as seen by the lengthy, repetitive and circular dissertations in an attempt to prove your opinions are fact.

And this:

Right back at you

is laughable at best. My posts regarding the P-40 have not been based on speculation or opinion, so anyone reading my posts can easily cross-reference the information from peer-reviewed sources to see if it's on the level or not.

And many of these "guys yakking on a sunday" around here are engineers, pilots, historians/authors and so on...so perhaps you should rethink your social approach and data presentation. It just may produce better conversation in the future.

 

[Schweik]

But you aren't posting data, you are posting opinion (as you mentioned) and fractured data backed by some pilot's observations.

The post that set you two off was this list of total victories by type. It was after I posted that that all the angry posts started.

Neither that or any of the other data points I or you or anyone else presented in this thread comes close to the standard of a peer reviewed academic article, thank god. I know because I've written those and they are a pain in the ass. Even with all the grief you guys are trying to give me this is still much more fun than writing an academic paper.

And Jeff Ethel wasn't just some pilot, he was an author and an expert on WW2 Warbirds, which he had more experience flying than most people alive today.

And many of these "guys yakking on a sunday" around here are engineers, pilots, historians/authors and so on...so perhaps you should rethink your social approach and data presentation. It just may produce better conversation in the future.

You seem to be suggesting, once again, something I never said.

Regardless of our status or profession, right here we are all guys yakking about 70 year old planes on a Sunday. I never put myself above that level. Nobody in 2018 lives or dies by the roll rate of a Spitfire in 1942 or the number of rounds carried by a P-51D in 1944. We are all into this subject because we find it interesting. Get real.

S

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Time to let this thread cool down a bit. Will be reopened soon...

Thread reopened.

 

[Navalwarrior]

So impatient. I told y'all I was posting from work. I'm at home now with the book in my hand. This is the book.

What you posted is a partial list. Total production of this plane was 1720 units not counting prototypes.

England ordered 320 NA 73 and 300 NA 83 (all as Mk I), and 92 NA-91 (as Mk 1A) and 50 NA 99 (as Mk II) for a total of 762 Allison Engined P-51s.
The US ordered 458 P-51s of various subtypes (see below) plus the 500 A-36 for a total of 958 Allison Engined P-51s.

Total production was therefore 1720 not counting 3 prototypes. It was not clear to me initially if the 86 recon versions were made originally for that purpose (this is why I originally thought total production run was ~1800). But I checked and read it a bit more carefully - they were apparently diverted from British orders, converted into recon planes and used in Tunisia and from England including over D-Day. These are the production numbers:

320 x Mk I (NA-73) Nov 41 to May 42. Serial Nos AG345 to AG664
200 x Mk I (NA-83) Apr to Aug 42. Serial Nos AL 958 to AM257
100 x Mk I (NA-83) Jul to Aug 42. Serial Nos AP164 to AP 263
92 x Mk IA (NA-91) Sept 42 to Jan 43 Serial Nos FD438 to FD 567
148 x P-51 (NA-91) Serial Nos 41-37320 to 41-37469
500 x A-36 (NA-97) Serial Nos 42-83663 to 42-84162
100 x P-51A-1 (NA -99) Serial Nos 43-6003 to 43-6102
55 x P-51A-5 (NA-99) Serial Nos 43-6103 to 43-6157
155 x P-51A-10 (NA-99) Serial Nos 43-6158 to 43-6312

Of the English models 51 were converted to F-6A and 35 converted to F-6B recon planes.

Allison Engined Mustangs in Combat
According to the book, page 42, the A-36 arrived at operational units (27th and 86th FBG) in March 1943 but did not fly a combat mission until 6 June 1943 against Pantelleria and Lampedusa. It may be possible however that some of the recon (F-6) birds may have been used before that.

Michael T Russo was an ace flying A-36s with the 16th Bomb Squadron in Italy. Apparently he was the only Ace with the type which is surprising considering ~1,600 of them were fairly heavily engaged over a long period of time. Does not compare well with say, the P-40F or the P-40K. Or the say, Yak-7.

The first unit that got mauled in Burma was the 311 FB group operating out of Kyurmitola India. They had 40 A-36s plus some P-51As. November 25 8 Mustangs flew escort to B-25s to Mingaladon Iarfield in Rangoon. They were bounced by four Ki-43s from the 64th Sentai. Two Mustangs were shot down for no claims. Shortly after another escort mission for B-24s was jumped again by 64th Sentai Ki-43s, losing 4 Mustangs including the 311 FG commanding officer, Colonel Harry Melton. One Ki-43 was shot down and one made a forced landing.

On Dec 1 1943 311 FBG escorted Liberators to Rangoon, got jumped again losing 1 P-51.

On Feb 14, 1944 13 P-51As were escorting B-25s to a raid at Zaundiaing. While strafing the target they were bounced by Ki-43s from the 50th Sentai. Two P-51s were lost and 3 damaged. No Japanese losses are mentioned.

They mention two more combats in March and April 1944 in which "several" Ki-43s of 50th Sentai were shot down, and one on March 16 where 50th Sentai Ki-43s "bounced" P-51As on takeoff and one was shot down with the pilot badly burned.

Like I said, a fairly dismal air to air combat record. You'll be happy to know though the book says several times that the P-51A was way better than the P-40 and even claims it was better in combat than the P-38. Better no doubt in many ways except in the sense of shooting down enemy aircraft while not getting shot down...

It does seem like it was a good dive bomber though and that changes my understanding of the DAF a bit, the existence of a good high speed dive bomber on the Allied side definitely puts an interesting twist on the whole war in that area. The USAAF had their own Stuka and it went 400 mph and had a ~1200 mile range.

S

You gave a good breakdown of Allison engined Mustangs. The confusion of the introduction of the different models is based on several factors:
- NAA the plane for the British (RAF), the US Govt ordered and paid for 2nd British order (Mustang MkIA) then held back for USAAF the remaining undelivered order after attack on Pearl Harbor, and MOST importantly the last Allison engine Mustang variant was assign as 'P-51A' (A is normally used for 1st assigned variant).

A brief order, from beginning to end:
- Mustang MkI to RAF, two fr this order were retained for USAAC (later the USAAF) and designated as XP-51.
- Mustang MkIA to RAF (only change was the armament to 4 20mm cannons, two in each wing), after PH the US Govt the remainder of this British order was held back, and were designed P-51-1 (and P-51-2 due to slight production change) by USAAF. To complicate further, most of these P-51-1 and -2s became F-6A since they were fitted w cameras for Photo-Recon roll.
- A-36A (notice that the -A following the number is for the first variant dive bomber; the USAAF finally gets it right!) dive bomber, initially called Invader/Apache but 'Mustang' and identification cards introduced by RAF in late 1942 likely influenced its use to avoid confusion over 'friend or foe' identification. Note that the A-36A was the first variant to have wing hard points for external fuel stores (drop tanks, initially 75 US gal capacity; note that the USAAF restricted aircraft manufacturers from making fighters capable of carrying external fuel stores [US Navy had no such restriction] and this did not change until 1943). However, a junior USAAF test pilot assigned to Lockheed, convinced chief designers to 'incorporate drop tank capability anyway; as he believe this next war was going to be a long range war'; these drop tank P-38Fs were coming off the production line when the Japanse attacked PH!
- P-51A for USAAF (first fighter variant ordered, retaining wing hard points for bombs/drop tanks), a fair number were converted for Photo-Recon and redesignated as F-6B (however, most if not all retained the 'black stenciling of P-51A on the left fuselage just forward of cockpit). 50 aircraft from the Amerian order were furnished to the British (RAF) as Mustang MkII, as replacement of confiscation of the MkI variant.

Notes: The RAF got 1500 hrs on the Allison, but only 400 hrs on the Merlin before engine major overhaul. Several RAF MkIs that entered service in mid-1942 were still flying combat missions (photo-recon) when the war ended in May 1945. The first single engine fighter to enter Germany since France was overrun were RAF Mustang MkI(s) in 1942 when they escorted Wellington bombers. The first known long range escort by USAAF Mustangs were A-36A(s) escorting B-26 Maurders from Africa (and back) to bomb German facilities in Northern Sicily/Southern Italy in 1943.

It is true that the 1st Air Command Group had to learn air-to-air tactics against the Japanese, just as Chenault taught his Flying Tigers, and 56th FG Commander Hub Zemke with his P-47s in the ETO. The real advantage in the CBI was that the P-51A (as well as A-36A) required a shorter runway to get airborne. Since makeshift runways were cut in the jungle (at least 3 time taking nearly 3 days to complete) as The Chindits advanced against the Japanese, this was an important attribute of the Allison engine Mustang over the P-47, which initially was used to replace lost P-51A. Also, bomb placement was expertly done with these low tree level attacks.
When Replacement aircraft were needed, an officer on leave toured training bases in Florida and Georgia and had these used but well maintained P-51A Mustangs shipped to the 1st ACG!

The P-51A also had a better horsepower due to an auto supercharger, a larger propeller . . . giving it a 20 mph gain in speed from 388 to 409 and higher performance from 17.000 to 20,000 ft.

Navalwarrior

 

[Schweik]

You gave a good breakdown of Allison engined Mustangs. The confusion of the introduction of the different models is based on several factors:
- NAA the plane for the British (RAF), the US Govt ordered and paid for 2nd British order (Mustang MkIA) then held back for USAAF the remaining undelivered order after attack on Pearl Harbor, and MOST importantly the last Allison engine Mustang variant was assign as 'P-51A' (A is normally used for 1st assigned variant).

A brief order, from beginning to end:
(snip)

The P-51A also had a better horsepower due to an auto supercharger, a larger propeller . . . giving it a 20 mph gain in speed from 388 to 409 and higher performance from 17.000 to 20,000 ft.

Navalwarrior

Fascinating stuff. I still don't get why this plane didn't get a bit wider use particularly in 1943. Seems like with the 20mm cannon and all that speed, and the range, and decent performance up to 20,000 ft, it would be valuable in the Med particularly vs. Fw 190s.

S

 

[Kevin J]

Fascinating stuff. I still don't get why this plane didn't get a bit wider use particularly in 1943. Seems like with the 20mm cannon and all that speed, and the range, and decent performance up to 20,000 ft, it would be valuable in the Med particularly vs. Fw 190s.

S

Only 150 were built, 93 went to the RAF, the USAAF kept the rest. That's enough for about 3 squadrons over 2 years.

 

[tomo pauk]

A very good post, I stil have a nitpic, though:

...

The P-51A also had a better horsepower due to an auto supercharger, a larger propeller . . . giving it a 20 mph gain in speed from 388 to 409 and higher performance from 17.000 to 20,000 ft.

The P-51A have had better altitude performance due to the engine's impeller spinning faster - max 28800 rpm vs. 26400 rpm at earlier 1-stage V-1710s at fighters. That meant the air is more compressed = more boost at choosen altitude = more power. A small price to pay for this was a slight loss of low altitude performance.
IIRC both P-51 and P-51A have had the same prop, or at least of same diameter.

 

[pbehn]

The problem faced by any single engine aircraft based in UK from 1940 to 1944 is that the only targets it could reach and damage were actually on the allied side. Shooting up a train may have some effect but it may be a train full of French people or goods for French people etc.

 

[Kevin J]

The problem faced by any single engine aircraft based in UK from 1940 to 1944 is that the only targets it could reach and damage were actually on the allied side. Shooting up a train may have some effect but it may be a train full of French people or goods for French people etc.

They certainly weren't allowed to destroy Dutch or Norwegian assets, they were definitely on our side. As for the French, they had joined the enemy. The issue at stake was continuing American support. At that time, America was a third German, a third Irish, 10% British and the rest came from all over Europe, so the RAF had to attempt precision bombing, even at night, and drop their bombs if they couldn't hit their targets accurately. A lot of German cows got killed.

 

[pbehn]

They certainly weren't allowed to destroy Dutch or Norwegian assets, they were definitely on our side. As for the French, they had joined the enemy. The issue at stake was continuing American support. At that time, America was a third German, a third Irish, 10% British and the rest came from all over Europe, so the RAF had to attempt precision bombing, even at night, and drop their bombs if they couldn't hit their targets accurately. A lot of German cows got killed.

Unless you provide some support for that I consider it a creation from your own head to support your present world view. Please bear in mind that speaking German does make someone politically "German" since Germany only united in the 1870s.

 

[swampyankee]

They certainly weren't allowed to destroy Dutch or Norwegian assets, they were definitely on our side. As for the French, they had joined the enemy. The issue at stake was continuing American support. At that time, America was a third German, a third Irish, 10% British and the rest came from all over Europe, so the RAF had to attempt precision bombing, even at night, and drop their bombs if they couldn't hit their targets accurately. A lot of German cows got killed.

You do realize that proportionately more Dutch people actively assisted the German invaders("the Netherlands saw one of the highest levels of collaboration during the Holocaust of any occupied country" http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II) than did those in France? And Vidkun Quisling gave his name to a category of traitor? All of the occupied countries had volunteers, especially from extreme right-wing organizations, but also from the police helping the nazis.