MOST UNDERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII?

[Kevin J]

109F-1 and F-2 were of similar performance to the Spitfire V. The Bf 109F-4 and, especially, the Fw 190A clearly outclassed the V.

I think you'll find that the RAF was already having severe problems with the Bf 109F before the FW190A came along as the F-1/2 were combating and superior to the Spitfire IIa/b plus a handful of Va's which matched them. The F-4 was superior to the Spitfire VB, the FW 190A simply outclassed it.

 

[Schweik]

109F-1 and F-2 were of similar performance to the Spitfire V. The Bf 109F-4 and, especially, the Fw 190A clearly outclassed the V.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

This is not borne out by the data on day to day victories and losses. Bf 109F-4 didn't exactly dominate Spit V or even late model P-40s.

S

 

[Kevin J]

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

This is not borne out by the data on day to day victories and losses. Bf 109F-4 didn't exactly dominate Spit V or even late model P-40s.

S

I think you'll find if you read Wikipedia "Fighter Command" that during 1941/42, the RAF was losing 4 fighters for every German one shot down. Below 15000 feet, the P-40C (Tomahawk IIB) was superior to both the Spitfire Vb and the Bf 109F-1/2, and the later models superior to the Bf 109F-4, so both ideally suited to the campaign in the Western Desert. As far as I know the Spitfire Vc was superior to the Bf 109F-4. I'm talking about the RAF's campaign over France in 1941, when most of the Spitfires available until the Summer were Spitfire II's with less than 100 Spitfire V conversions from earlier marks. The production Spitfire Vb's didn't arrive until the Summer, at which point the Bf 109F-4 had arrived. The first production Spitfire Vc wasn't made until October 1941 by which time the campaign over France was over.

 

[Schweik]

I think you'll find that the RAF was already having severe problems with the Bf 109F before the FW190A came along as the F-1/2 were combating and superior to the Spitfire IIa/b plus a handful of Va's which matched them. The F-4 was superior to the Spitfire VB, the FW 190A simply outclassed it.

Based on the actual kill vs. loss numbers on both sides Spit Vb and Vc were holding their own pretty well in North Africa against the F-4 as were the USAAF P-40 squadrons. I can provide specific examples if needed though I recommend to everybody to get the book, for the Spit V stuff especially Volume III

S

 

[Schweik]

I think you'll find if you read Wikipedia "Fighter Command" that during 1941/42, the RAF was losing 4 fighters for every German one shot down. Below 15000 feet, the P-40C (Tomahawk IIB) was superior to both the Spitfire Vb and the Bf 109F-1/2, and the later models superior to the Bf 109F-4, so both ideally suited to the campaign in the Western Desert. As far as I know the Spitfire Vc was superior to the Bf 109F-4. I'm talking about the RAF's campaign over France in 1941, when most of the Spitfires available until the Summer were Spitfire II's with less than 100 Spitfire V conversions from earlier marks. The production Spitfire Vb's didn't arrive until the Summer, at which point the Bf 109F-4 had arrived. The first production Spitfire Vc wasn't made until October 1941 by which time the campaign over France was over.

It always went back and forth. For a while one side had the advantage then it shifted the other way.

The Bf 109F of any subtype was definitely superior to a Spit II and maybe a Spit Va. By the time you had substantial numbers of Spit Vb and Vc in North Africa (Summer of 42), they were definitely not suffering 4-1 losses against Bf 109s, and there weren't enough Fw 190s to make a difference.

P-40s had some advantages below 15,000 feet and for a short period in 1941 they were doing really well against the early Italian fighters and to some extent, once they got there, the Germans too. But the Germans reacted quickly - they started to retire their older Bf 109E and brought in the F, and particularly JG 27 quickly adopted their tactics to the performance ceiling limitation of the P-40. They routinely climbed above them to attack from above. Thus for most P-40 pilots combat started with an attack from above and behind - something a skilled pilot could survive and adapt to but was by no means a comfortable situation. Only once continued combat caused the Bf 109s to lose sufficient 'E' were the P-40s able to fight back. They also apparently used overboosting their engines as high as 70" Hg which could confer ~1700 HP at some altitudes.

The fact that the Commonwealth was not using finger 4 / pairs of wingmen until late 1942 further exacerbated matters, as did the general lack of training for pilots especially some of the Colonial pilots like the South Africans. As a result, a lot of P-40s got shot down. In the first half of 1942 the Commonwealth was taking heavy casualties of P-40 and Hurricanes.

It came down to certain pilots, like the Australian Ace Clive Caldwell, to reform training standards such as with his shadow shooting, or Nicky Barr who was one of the first to realize that you could turn with P-40s (and Hurricanes) with high G turns. Operational level tactics also shifted in the last quarter of 1942 more toward going after the Germans over their own bases - I think initiated by the Americans.

Once the P-40F & L showed up, with a performance ceiling up to 20,000, the advantage of the Bf 109F series and early G series was diminished, partly because they didn't have time to climb so high up especially when attacked over their own fields (often the Germans would put 2 or 4 Bf 109s on CAP over their fields but that was not enough) or over tactical battlefields when the main target was a medium bomber flying at 12,000 feet. The Americans were also using 'Finger Four' tactics with two pairs of wingmen which helped considerably.

You also had P-38s in late 1942 and Spit IXs show up in early 1943. The latter in particular clearly meant doom for the Germans, it obviously dominated all the Bf 109 types and was able to handle the Fw 190 as well.

S

 

[Kevin J]

It always went back and forth. For a while one side had the advantage then it shifted the other way.

The Bf 109F of any subtype was definitely superior to a Spit II and maybe a Spit Va. By the time you had substantial numbers of Spit Vb and Vc in North Africa (Summer of 42), they were definitely not suffering 4-1 losses against Bf 109s, and there weren't enough Fw 190s to make a difference.

P-40s had some advantages below 15,000 feet and for a short period in 1941 they were doing really well against the early Italian fighters and to some extent, once they got there, the Germans too. But the Germans reacted quickly - they started to retire their older Bf 109E and brought in the F, and particularly JG 27 quickly adopted their tactics to the performance ceiling limitation of the P-40. They routinely climbed above them to attack from above. Thus for most P-40 pilots combat started with an attack from above and behind - something a skilled pilot could survive and adapt to but was by no means a comfortable situation. Only once continued combat caused the Bf 109s to lose sufficient 'E' were the P-40s able to fight back. They also apparently used overboosting their engines as high as 70" Hg which could confer ~1700 HP at some altitudes.

The fact that the Commonwealth was not using finger 4 / pairs of wingmen until late 1942 further exacerbated matters, as did the general lack of training for pilots especially some of the Colonial pilots like the South Africans. As a result, a lot of P-40s got shot down. In the first half of 1942 the Commonwealth was taking heavy casualties of P-40 and Hurricanes.

It came down to certain pilots, like the Australian Ace Clive Caldwell, to reform training standards such as with his shadow shooting, or Nicky Barr who was one of the first to realize that you could turn with P-40s (and Hurricanes) with high G turns. Operational level tactics also shifted in the last quarter of 1942 more toward going after the Germans over their own bases - I think initiated by the Americans.

Once the P-40F & L showed up, with a performance ceiling up to 20,000, the advantage of the Bf 109F series and early G series was diminished, partly because they didn't have time to climb so high up especially when attacked over their own fields (often the Germans would put 2 or 4 Bf 109s on CAP over their fields but that was not enough) or over tactical battlefields when the main target was a medium bomber flying at 12,000 feet. The Americans were also using 'Finger Four' tactics with two pairs of wingmen which helped considerably.

You also had P-38s in late 1942 and Spit IXs show up in early 1943. The latter in particular clearly meant doom for the Germans, it obviously dominated all the Bf 109 types and was able to handle the Fw 190 as well.

S

The P-40 in Soviet Aviation
Have you read any of this document, the Soviets rated the Warhawk quite highly. There are documents on the Hurricane, Airacobra and Spitfire too. The Hurricane they improved upon, the Airacobra was their favourite and the Spitfire didn't come up to their expectations.

 

[Kevin J]

Based on the actual kill vs. loss numbers on both sides Spit Vb and Vc were holding their own pretty well in North Africa against the F-4 as were the USAAF P-40 squadrons. I can provide specific examples if needed though I recommend to everybody to get the book, for the Spit V stuff especially Volume III

S

I'm aware of the Warhawk squadrons doing very well as well as those equipped with Spitfire VIII's although I've never seen anything on the Spitfire Vc other than reading that it was superior to the Bf 109F-4. My understanding of the Spitfire Vb was that it was a little fragile and best suited as an interceptor.

 

[Schweik]

The P-40 in Soviet Aviation
Have you read any of this document, the Soviets rated the Warhawk quite highly. There are documents on the Hurricane, Airacobra and Spitfire too. The Hurricane they improved upon, the Airacobra was their favourite and the Spitfire didn't come up to their expectations.

Yes I have indeed read it, you should read the interview with Golodnikov on that same site, and then go look for the rest of the interview as you can find it on google books. Very enlightening on the subject of the P-40 vs Bf 109.

S

 

[Kevin J]

Yes I have indeed read it, you should read the interview with Golodnikov on that same site, and then go look for the rest of the interview as you can find it on google books. Very enlightening on the subject of the P-40 vs Bf 109.

S

Do you have a web address that I can look for?

 

[Schweik]

Do you have a web address that I can look for?

Google is your friend

Part 2

 

[Schweik]

I'm aware of the Warhawk squadrons doing very well as well as those equipped with Spitfire VIII's although I've never seen anything on the Spitfire Vc other than reading that it was superior to the Bf 109F-4. My understanding of the Spitfire Vb was that it was a little fragile and best suited as an interceptor.

Spit Vc was I think about the same as the Vb except for more ammunition for the 20mm cannon and slightly different ammunition storage. Maybe somebody else can correct me if I'm wrong about that. I would not call the spit 'fragile' though it probably wasn't as suited for ground attack as some other Allied types. It was the best Allied fighter available in the Med during the Desert War because it could fight at high altitude, was well armed and extremely maneuverable.

The USAAF P-40 squadrons seem to have done pretty well in air to air combat based on Shores "Mediterranean Air War" Vol III, but the biggest battles they were involved in (Pantelleria, Sicily, Taranto, and Anzio) in were in a period not yet covered in the day by day, claims vs. losses analysis by Shores (or anyone else I'm aware of). That should be in Volume IV of that book which is due out this fall. I believe Volume IV should give us a more definitive sense of how the P-40F/L did against the Bf 109.

You could crunch the numbers in Vol III and that would I think raise some eyebrows, but I have been too lazy / busy to do it so far.

S

 

[Kevin J]

Google is your friend

Part 2

Thanks, I don't know how I missed that one.

 

[Schweik]

Thanks, I don't know how I missed that one.

Like i said, if you search a little you can find the rest of that interview in a book on google books (I don't remember the name) where he gets into a few more specific anecdotes about flying P-40s against Bf 109s.

This is another interview I read recently that I found very interesting, from Australian Ace Bobby Gibbes. He gives you a pretty good idea of the realities of fighting against Bf 109s in P-40s in that Theater and it matches what most of the other pilots said - Bf 109 was faster, climbed better and had a higher ceiling, but the P-40 could out-turn and out-dive it.

One part was particularly interesting to me in light of the memos which have come to light related to over-boosting Allison engines. Apparently they overboosted Merlins too but not quite to the same extent. The most powerful Allison engines - the ones which could be overboosted the most, were the V-1710-73 on the P-40K. In RAF / Commonwealth service the P-40K was designated Kittyhawk III*. This interview excerpt gives some insight into how that translated into combat:

"Well I was a poor shot. Air to ground I think I was a very good shot. I could group my bullets and make sure they didn't run through. I could hold them on target while I went in and strafed. But air to air I certainly missed an awful lot of aeroplanes I fired at. I think the classic example was one day when I had a Kitty Mark III - I had acquired it illegally, I might say - and I had to give it back to the RAF later - but I had a little bit more horsepower than the rest of the squadron and when three 109s passed overhead or ahead of us, if I had waited to take the squadron with me, which normally I would have done, they would have got away.

But seeing them and knowing I had that bit more power I opened the taps and went after them.

I had a look at the three of them and I thought, if I pull a lead on the number one, number three could probably get a deflection shot at me, so I thought, well, I'll get number two first.

So I fired at number two. I must have misjudged their speed completely because the one behind, probably fifty yards behind, flicked over and went down smoking like hell. I looked round to see who else had shot at it but I was the only one in the sky. I then decided, well, I'll go after the number one and number two but, of course, they didn't wait for me. The one, incidentally, number three, did go in.

Yes, it was a successful mission. We had a big celebration that night in the squadron and a few of the 'Yanks' came over and they thought the shooting was quite brilliant and I had only fired very few rounds. However, during the night I managed to get quite a few grogs on board and I decided that I'd confess that I hadn't even aimed at that one, I'd aimed at the one ahead of it. And, of course, when I did tell them of course no one believed me, but it was true."

This interview matches similar anecdotes I have read from American WW2 veterans who mentioned overboosting P-40Es and Ks to do a climbing turn to catch Bf 109s after the latter had made an attacking pass. I couldn't use these in research though as they were just emails the guys had sent somebody which were then posted to a forum somewhere. But this is an official interview which was conducted for the Australian War Memorial so it's more valid as an historical record.

S


* so was the P-40M which had a different engine which was rated for higher altitude but could not be overboosted as much, so that kind of confuses the issue a bit.

 

[Schweik]

He also mentions this, which I suspect may refer to overboosting (and actually rewiring the throttles which they apparently did according to Allison engine company memo and another war dept memo):

"Well it was basically the same aeroplane. We were a little disappointed when we first got the Kitty, we thought it'd be way ahead of the Tomahawk. In actual fact, it was a little bit better. One thing I personally didn't like about it was the Tomahawk had fairly high sides and you'd be sitting behind a thin sheet of metal but you felt safer. The Kittyhawk had perspex coming way down and you felt as if you were sitting up, very vulnerable, because you could see out so much. That was one feature I do remember. However, later when we got our Kittyhawks running properly - were getting better performance - they were a better aeroplane."

 

[Schweik]

I believe the P-40 had different problems intercepting Japanese fighters at 30,000ft than did the Spitfires.

The Fw 190A could probably haul an auxiliary fuel tanks and still have a performance advantage. Though, maybe not at 30,000ft.

This article explains how the 49th FG was able to use specially adapted tactics to (somewhat) effectively intercept Japanese raids over Darwin at high altitude in spite of their engines being way above their performance ceiling. In a nutshell, the Americans broke up into flights of 4, and kept diving onto the Japanese bombers. By breaking up into small groups, it prevented the Japanese fighters from fully engaging with the Americans, because as soon as they left the bombers the bombers would be attacked. From the article:

"With time-to-height and operational ceiling limitations, Wurtsmith scrambled his squadrons in small manoeuvrable formations of four aircraft, with each flight leader listening to the No. 5 Fighter Sector broadcast. This ensured each raid was subject to multiple interceptions by flights of P-40s, which effectively tied the escorting Zeros to the bomber formation to ensure unchallenged flights of P-40s did not slip through to engage the G4Ms."

The P-40s could barely fly at that altitude (25,000 to 27,000 feet) but even with that diminished capacity they could still shoot down bombers. Once the A6Ms attacked, they could dive away to disengage, and if the A6Ms followed, they could defeat them at lower altitude. The Zeros also didn't fly that well at 27,000 feet so it wasn't quite as lopsided as it sounded.

Although the American pilots were inexperienced and not that well trained - 95 out of the 102 pilots in the Group had never even flown P-40s before - the leaders (Lieutenant Colonel Paul Wurtsmith and his XO Major Don Hutchinson) were very experienced veterans - and that made a big difference. They devised a clever strategy.

In the end, the score was even, per Japanese records they lost 19 aircraft (one Ki-46 recon plane, seven A6M fighters and twelve G4M bombers), and the Americans also lost 19 early model P-40Es and 4 pilots. But they did manage to disrupt the raids and prevent extensive damage to Darwin, the ships & harbor and the surrounding airfields, which was their mission.

It's a good example of how good leadership can overcome serious, even crippling technical disadvantages.

I'm not sure what the effective performance ceiling was for the Fw 190s - I guess it depended on how heavily laden they were with rockets etc., but I gather they faced some of the same kind of issues going after B-17s and B-24s.

S

 

[eagledad]

IIRC, a conversation that I had 40+ years ago with a former LW pilot indicated that the FW-190 with the BMW engine started losing its performance above 8000 meters. FWIW

Eagledad

 

[Elvis]

Most underrated?
...my sig aircraft, The Mighty L-4 Grasshopper!
At the time, thought of as not much more than a motorized kite, its uses were innumerable.
Able to adapt into a wide variety of roles, it really was a Flying Jeep.


Elvis

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Most underrated?
...my sig aircraft, The Mighty L-4 Grasshopper!
At the time, thought of as not much more than a motorized kite, its uses were innumerable.
Able to adapt into a wide variety of roles, it really was a Flying Jeep.


Elvis

And didn't it actually score an air-to-air kill? Something like a wild west shoot out with pistols taking down a Storch?

 

[Elvis]

LOL! I WANNA READ THAT STORY!
In fact, while writing my other post, I had this picture in my head of an L-4 and a Fiesler-Storch doing lazy Susan's around each other, while the passengers were taking pot shots with black powder rifles!.
...thanks XBe02Drvr. I'll have to look that one up. Would be an interesting read, for sure.


Elvis
P.S. To clarify, though, I really do have the utmost respect for the L-4. It was probably one of the most universally applicable vehicle's (not just aircraft) in the Armed Forces inventory, at that time. Beloved by many GI's, many are still in use today.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

LOL! I WANNA READ THAT STORY!

Read it here:
Last Dogfight of WWII in Europe Was Between Two Spotter Planes,Firing Pistols at Each Other. The German Aircraft Was Destroyed
Quite a tale. And Lt. Francis had to wait 22 years for his DFC! Ordinary guys doing extraordinary things in extraordinary times. Never see another generation like that! Amazing that the Grasshopper did the same job as the Storch at half the weight, a third the power, and a quarter the cost.
Cheers,
Wes