Most 'Underrated' Aircraft of WW2?

[michael rauls]

Wow, i think these are all great picks but if pressed to pick one..........The p40s reputation really takes a beating but viewed in what i believe is the proper context it was quite effective. To start the p40 warhawk is the same plane as the p36 hawk, just a different engine. A warhawk is still a hawk with a new engine every bit as much as a mustang is still a mustang with the Merlin or the fw 190d is still a fw 190 even with a new engine. The point of this exercise? Just that it shows the p40 is 1934/35 design that was still fairly effective at what it was originally designed to do right up until the end of hostilities in 1945. Like all pre war amy designs( the p38 being an exception) it was designed to provide air cover for and direct support to ground forces. Such was the mission that was envisioned for army fighters at the time. Sort of low altitude air superiority and support.The thinking was the bomber would get through and there was no need for escorts. So I would submit in the p40 we have 1934/35 design that remained reasonably effective at the mission it was originally designed for right up until vj day. I believe viewed in this context the p40 is not just an also ran or stop gap but truly a remarkable and successful aircraft.

 

[wuzak]

Like all pre war amy designs( the p38 being an exception) it was designed to provide air cover for and direct support to ground forces. Such was the mission that was envisioned for army fighters at the time. Sort of low altitude air superiority and support.

I seriously doubt that the P-36 was designed for "air cover for and direct support to ground forces".

More that it was designed as a general purpose fighter whose main purpose was to shoot down enemy aircraft.

 

[michael rauls]

I seriously doubt that the P-36 was designed for "air cover for and direct support to ground forces".

More that it was designed as a general purpose fighter whose main purpose was to shoot down enemy aircraft.

Well I don't pretend to be an expert but thats what i have read from multiple times and from many what seem to be knowledgeable commenters hereas well that that was how the army envisioned fighter missions before the war. The whole the heavely armed bomber will get through so no need for escorts and all that. Such was, so I have read, the pre war thinking.

 

[fubar57]

The only reason the P-40 went into production was because of a compromise by the Army. The P-38, -47 and -51 were at least two years away from mass production and the P-40 could get large scale production in half the time: it was quantity over quality

 

[michael rauls]

The only reason the P-40 went into production was because of a compromise by the Army. The P-38, -47 and -51 were at least two years away from mass production and the P-40 could get large scale production in half the time: it was quantity over quality

I'll buy that but it doesn't change the fact that the p40 was basically a 1934 design that remained at least reasonably effective at what it was intended to do(and even some things it wasn't) right till the end. That ,in my mind at least ,is truly impressive.

 

[fubar57]

The Army said it didn't have the speed or altitude performance it wanted but this was the best it could get at the time.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-36 was born in an age when "Pursuit" aircraft were to intercept enemy fighters and/or Bombers.

Aircraft like the Northrop A-17 were "Attack" aircraft, who's purpose was to scout, attack ground targets and when necessary, attack bombers.

Different roles, different aircraft.

 

[michael rauls]

The Army said it didn't have the speed or altitude performance it wanted but this was the best it could get at the time.

In 1934 when the hawk was.comming off the drawing board they said that? Because thats what I'm talking about. A 1934 design that was at least.reasonably effective until vj day. What someone in the army though of it in say 1939 or 1940 wouldn't.change that.equation.

 

[wuzak]

The only reason the P-40 went into production was because of a compromise by the Army. The P-38, -47 and -51 were at least two years away from mass production and the P-40 could get large scale production in half the time: it was quantity over quality

Since the P-51 was designed as an alternative to licence production of the P-40, I don't think the USAAC were hanging out for it before the P-40 arrived.

The ones that it may have been a stop-gap for were the P-38 and P-39.

 

[wuzak]

Well I don't pretend to be an expert but thats what i have read from multiple times and from many what seem to be knowledgeable commenters hereas well that that was how the army envisioned fighter missions before the war. The whole the heavely armed bomber will get through so no need for escorts and all that. Such was, so I have read, the pre war thinking.

Whoever suggested the P-36 was even considered for escort?

The P-36 was born in an age when "Pursuit" aircraft were to intercept enemy fighters and/or Bombers.

Exactly.

 

[michael rauls]

Whoever suggested the P-36 was even considered for escort?
I don't think i said the hawk was designed as an escort. What i said is that i have read, many times that the main mission the army envisioned for pre war fighters was air suppirriority and support and that the" the bomber would get through" thinking was part of that thinking. Even if this is not the case, and wow would that suprise me considering the number of times I have read it in steamingly knowledgeable articles and commentary this it still wouldn't change my basic premis that the p40 is basically a 1934/35 design that remained at least reasonably effective till the end of the war and that is pretty darn good.


Exactly.

I don't

 

[michael rauls]

Whoever suggested the P-36 was even considered for escort?
I don't think I suggested it was. What i said is that air superiority and support was what the army envisioned as the role for fighter planes pre war and that the bomber will get through attitude was part of that, so I have read. Many times. Even if this is not the case it doesn't change my main point that in the p40 we have a1934\35 design that was at least reasonably effective till the end of the war and that is nothing but remarkable.


Exactly.

 

[GrauGeist]

...Like all pre war amy designs( the p38 being an exception) it was designed to provide air cover for and direct support to ground forces. Such was the mission that was envisioned for army fighters at the time...

Like I said in my previous post, USAAC Pursuit aircraft (designated with a "P" prefix) were for combat patrol and interception, USAAC Attack aircraft (designated with an "A" prefix) were for scouting, ground attack and aggressive interception.

In the 1930's, there was only one military that focused on long-range bomber escort, and that was the Imperial Japanese Navy.

 

[michael rauls]

Like I said in my previous post, USAAC Pursuit aircraft (designated with a "P" prefix) were for combat patrol and interception, USAAC Attack aircraft (designated with an "A" prefix) were for scouting, ground attack and aggressive interception.

In the 1930's, there was only one military that focused on long-range bomber escort, and that was the Imperial Japanese Navy.

What I said or at least meant to say was that, at least what I have read, is that tha bomber would get through doctrine was PART of the thinking that lead the army to focus on air superiority and support as the main focus for pre war fighter types. Even if this is not the case, which would suprise considering the amount of ink thats been expended on it, it stil wouldn't negate my basic premise that in the p40 we have a 1934/35 design that remained at least fairly effective till the end of the war and in my book thats quite impressive.

 

[GrauGeist]

What I said or at least meant to say was that, at least what I have read, is that tha bomber would get through doctrine was PART of the thinking that lead the army to focus on air superiority and support as the main focus for pre war fighter types. Even if this is not the case, which would suprise considering the amount of ink thats been expended on it, it stil wouldn't negate my basic premise that in the p40 we have a 1934/35 design that remained at least fairly effective till the end of the war and in my book thats quite impressive.

You seem to be forgetting that the P-47, developed from the P-43, was based on the Seversky P-35 - which beat the P-36 in the initial USAAC contract of 1935.
Because the USAAC felt that Seversky couldn't meet their obligations, the P-36 was ordered as a back up - the rest is history.

 

[wuzak]

What I said or at least meant to say was that, at least what I have read, is that tha bomber would get through doctrine was PART of the thinking that lead the army to focus on air superiority and support as the main focus for pre war fighter types. Even if this is not the case, which would suprise considering the amount of ink thats been expended on it, it stil wouldn't negate my basic premise that in the p40 we have a 1934/35 design that remained at least fairly effective till the end of the war and in my book thats quite impressive.

You made it sound like close air support and escort were the only possible roles for a pursuit type aircraft in the mid 1930s,

 

[wuzak]

You seem to be forgetting that the P-47, developed from the P-43, was based on the Seversky P-35 - which beat the P-36 in the initial USAAC contract of 1935.
Because the USAAC felt that Seversky couldn't meet their obligations, the P-36 was ordered as a back up - the rest is history.

While the P-47B shared its concept with the P-43, it is a stretch to say it was developed from the P-43.

I suppose you could say the P-51 was developed from the P-40 - after all, its original design was to be a better (or better than a) P-40.

 

[michael rauls]

You made it sound like close air support and escort were the only possible roles for a pursuit type aircraft in the mid 1930s,

Well sorry i didn't mean to. Only that, at least from what i have read, were the rolls that the p40 were envisioned for and what, again what i have read( i am certainly not an expert) was the thinking behind that but that wasn't my main point anyway long service life of the basic design and therefore underratedness was.

 

[GrauGeist]

While the P-47B shared its concept with the P-43, it is a stretch to say it was developed from the P-43.

I suppose you could say the P-51 was developed from the P-40 - after all, its original design was to be a better (or better than a) P-40.

The P-43 was developed from the P-35 - (AP-4/YP-43).
The P-47 was developed from the P-43 - (AP-10/XP-47).

Direct lineage.

 

[Schweik]

The P-36 and P-40 both had a serious flaw, that being the lack of high altitude performance of the engines. They never did figure this out. The airframe was too heavy until two stage supercharged RR Merlin engines were available, and these were put on the (faster and longer-ranged) P-51 by the British, and later in an official capacity by NAA as we all know. Because of the relatively low altitude performance ceiling of the engines, both speed and range of the P-36 and P-40 series were limited (since the highest speed and the best cruise efficiency were reached at relatively high altitude, generally speaking) and it limited their effectiveness as an interceptor against Operational or Strategic bombers - that is to say specifically, against high-flying multi-engined level-bombers.

This made Generals, military planners and strategists deeply dislike the Curtiss Hawk family of fighters. The P-36 was not suitable for the defense of England during the BoB, because it wouldn't have been good fighting at 20,000 feet or more where the German medium bombers and their Bf 109 escorts were flying. The P-40 also had problems early on against Japanese long range medium bombers (G3M, G4M, Ki-21 etc.) in the Pacific though they were able to get around the performance ceiling issues by using clever tactics. It wouldn't be good for escorting bombers on those kinds of raids either, and had very limited Strategic value.

However, in Tactical combat, the P-36 and P-40 both rose to the occasion far better than expected (or that they should have a right to do on paper, so to speak) and continued to be effective throughout the War.

The P-36 was the most effective Allied fighter in the Battle of France - and this includes the Hurricane and Spitfire.

The P-40 was the most effective Allied fighter in the early period (roughly the first year) of the Western Desert in Commonwealth use. It was the best hands down in the CBI, and along with the Wildcat, was the best Allied fighter in the Pacific in the initial crucial stages. It was also one of the most effective fighters available to the Soviets in the pivotal and desperate year of 1942, though the Soviets had a lot of maintenance problems with them.

By 1942, the Hurricane, with which the P-40 is so often compared, had clearly slipped a notch. The British and Commonwealth had downgraded it beneath the P-40, the latter often providing escort for the former after 4 RAF, 2 RAAF and 4 SAAF Fighter Squadrons were converted over to the Tomahawk. The Soviets hated the Hurricane and phased it out of use in 1942, whereas they were still using P-40s in the front line for another year, and in the Baltic and PVO (air defense) squadrons until the end of the War.

The P-40 was continuously improved through 1943, including the use of License-built Merlin XX engines and various weight reducing programs, but even the Merlins were not high altitude engines and even with significantly boosted horsepower from the Merlis or much more powerful Allisons (V-1710-73 for example), the P-40 never made the magic cutoff line of 400 mph, and never became the Strategic Escort or high altitude interceptor that the Generals wanted. Curtiss Aircraft company arguably never made another successful major combat aircraft after the P-40 and had a series of ever more egregious and embarrassing scandals which made the War Dept dislike them even more.

However, the improvements, even though they appeared marginal on paper, continued to enhance the capabilities of the P-40 sufficiently to keep it in the game, and not just as a fighter bomber as is so often claimed in various summaries. The extremely maneuverable fighter had a very high dive speed and good high speed handling, enabling pilots to escape or disengage from combat when they needed to, a critical ingredient for a successful fighter which the Hurricane, for example, never managed, and which the Wildcat didn't really manage when facing German or Italian fighters. It was also able to outmaneuver enemy fighters in the MTO that attempted to dogfight, and catch enemy planes that tried to dive away.

The P-39, the ostensibly much more modern stablemate of the P-40, never worked out in US or Commonwealth use. Newer American types like the P-38 and P-47 were late to the game and had extended teething problems (the P-47 having to go from P-35, to P-43, through a series of early P-47 models before reaching maturity). Gnashing their teeth, the US Generals were forced to equip 5 Fighter Groups with P-40F/L for use in North Africa and Italy (57th, 33rd, 79th, 324th, and 325th Fighter Groups) plus the 99th FS of the Tuskegee airmen. During and right after the War they were often portrayed as doing poorly, but their records were actually very good, better than most MTO P-38 squadrons and competitive with the Spitfire V squadrons in terms of victories vs. losses.

The P-40 itself was able to remain competitive, in the sense that they could still fly 'armed recon', fighter sweeps, escort Tactical bombers (frequently A-20s and B-25s) and strafing runs on enemy fighter bases with a reasonable probability of survival all over the world, well into 1944. In the CBI this continued into 1945. The reason was the maneuverability and the means of disengaging, as well as the oft mentioned ruggedness and firepower of the type. Those qualities tend to be overemphasized though since with the increasing firepower of late-war fighters meant that no amount of armor or sturdy construction could be counted on to save you in a fight, at best they increased the chances of survival incrementally. The real reason P-40 pilots so often survived combat was the maneuverability and high dive speed.

Even in 1943 and 1944 you get experienced pilots flying P-40s shooting down Bf 109s, MC 205s, Fw 190s and Ki43s and A6Ms in large numbers, at favorable rates.

Details I have seen posted in other threads on this very forum show that P-40 pilots were actually holding their own very well even against late war types like the Ki-84 and Ki 61, and planes (like Zeros) flown by the most experienced crews.

The P-40 may not have been the most underrated but it's still very negative reputation is at odds with it's admittedly uneven but often very good combat record.

S