P-38 vs P-47

[K5083]

" You could use Mustangs as escorts for fighter-bombers and bombers but they still need a top cover. Bet you they didn't score a single aerial victory over Dieppe though."

You would lose that bet. The very first Mustang victory was ove Dieppe. An American pilot in the RAF name of Hollis Hills got a Fw190. In the early days of usenet Hollis used to comment on rec.aviation.military. He later transferred to the USN and got more kills in Hellcats.

On the header subject, P47 every time if it had the range. Just check on the claim/loss ratio. In the ETO the Thunderbolt had the best. 56th FG 1000+ kills for 128 losses. No P-38 outfit in the ETO came close, more like 1:1. Mustangs aound 4:1. In the Pacific there aren't many P-47 units to compare with the P-38s very good record. But Kearby's outfit claimed 300+ for two. (I've been unable to confirm that stat!).

 

[fubar57]

Hollis flew with 414 Sqn. (RCAF). Over Dieppe he flew in RU•M, s/n AG470

 

[pbehn]

Hollis flew with 414 Sqn. (RCAF). Over Dieppe he flew in RU•M, s/n AG470

In one of four RCAF and RAF squadrons at Dieppe taking pictures in an aggressive manner.

 

[pbehn]

P-38s actually had the photo recon version as the first version to fly over enemy territory.

The need for suitable planes at the time was desperate and remained so pretty much throughout the war.

 

[Kevin J]

I'm willing to guess the P-40 could turn tighter then the P-51, but from what I've heard, in dogfights, most kills were from sneaking up on someone and blasting them with your guns, before they (the victim) had a chance to react. I'm also guessing that during the later half of WW2 in Europe, American pilots got more training, before going to combat, then the German pilots, I'm sure by 1943-1945, German limited fuel supply, did not allow a German pilot at lot of training time, before going into combat. The Tuskegee fighter pilots did well in WW2, flying the P-51 and one factor was that as they were at first held back from combat, allowing them to train more, before getting into the fight.

The P-40 had a better roll rate and could out turn a P-51.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

What I said was that the Spitfire Vb was inferior to the Tomahawk below 15000 feet

That seems suspect to me

 

[Kevin J]

That seems suspect to me

I think you'll find that the Spitfire Vb's Merlin 45 was rated for high altitude performance, like 20000 feet. That's where the combat took place from November 1940 into late 1941 over South East England, the English Channel and Northern France. Lower altitude boost came later. Up to 15000 feet the Tomahawk was faster and had a better roll rate. So it was better suited for the fighting in the Middle East and the Western Desert supporting the British Army. Perhaps you're forgetting how successful the AVG's Tomahawks were in Burma. Against the Bf 109E it was fairly evenly matched. With reduced armament, the Soviets reckoned it was the equal of the Bf 109F-1/2.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Against the Bf 109E it was fairly evenly matched

So it was evenly matched against the Spitfire Mk.I as well?

 

[Clayton Magnet]

The numbers I see on spitfireperformance and wwiiaircraftperformance between the P-40B and Spitfire show the Mk.VB being slightly faster below 15000' (although little to choose between them) climbing significantly better and rolling faster at speeds below 240 mph. I think we can all agree that two 20mm cannons and four .303 machine guns was superior to two synchronized .50's, and four .30 in the wing.
The P-40A,B/Tomahawk probably dived better, and had greater radius of action, but I wouldn't call it overall "superior"

 

[Shortround6]

For both planes the situation below 15,000ft get complicated as many P-40 pilots used higher boost than the "official" limits. Sometimes much higher. This may have been done earlier than the Merlin 45 was allowed to go from 9lbs boost to 12lbs. Later the Merlin 45 was allowed 16lb of boost. 9lb is about 48in and that is only a bit above the 44in officially allowed on the early Allisons. Some pilots talk about using as much as 70 in on the early Allisons but that is pretty much at sea level. By around 4500ft the supercharger could only supply about 56in and the power dropped back to normal as the plane got to 11-12000ft.
For the Spitfire, not only could it hold 48in to almost 20,000ft in level flight (max RAM) it could hold 54in to about 13,000ft while climbing and was good for about 62 in ( 16lbs boost) at 8800ft in a climb and 13,000f tin level flight.
The P-40B/C and all Tomahawks were never given a WEP rating, over boosting was done at the squadron/group level and troubles with engines are on an anecdotal level.
The D & E got the WEP rating but as shown above the Spitfire V when given the 12lb rating picked up a significant increase in performance (about 20mph?) at all altitudes under about 17,500ft. The 16lb rating was good for around 15-16mph more under about 15,000ft, rate of climb picked up about 1100fpm under 8800ft.

We have to be careful with the timing of the reports and/or the actual limits at which the planes were flown in combat.

edit, In the Summer of 1941 the Spit V was limited to 9lbs of boost, this is about the time the AVGs planes arrive in Rangoon Burma in crates, it is about 1 month after the Tomahawk first sees action in NA. By Oct 1941 the first P-40Es show up in Egypt. By Mid Nov there are 5 Tomahawk squadrons involved with operation Crusader. Dec 20th 1941 sees the first AVG action.
Jan 3rd 1942 sees the Merlin 45 cleared for to use 60 1/2 inches instead of 54 1/2 inches, I don;t know when between June and Jan the jump was made from 48in to 54 1/2 but obviously it was before the change to 60 1/2 inches.

 

[Stig1207]

Up to 15000 feet the Tomahawk was faster and had a better roll rate. So it was better suited for the fighting in the Middle East and the Western Desert supporting the British Army.

So if given the choice, the RAF and Commonwealth pilots in North Africa would have chosen the Tomahawk over the Spitfire MKV?

I certainly doubt that; but of cause they didn't get to choose, and Fighter Command kept the Spitfires in the ETO, and the Tomahawks went to North Africa, but more out of necessity than because they were more suitable.

 

[PAT303]

Tomahawks and Spitfires complimented each other during the ''goose shoot''. P-40 GOOSE SHOOT

 

[Kevin J]

Tomahawks and Spitfires complimented each other during the ''goose shoot''. P-40 GOOSE SHOOT

I've bookmarked it to read later. Frankly I think the P-40 is underrated. 7000 in US Service including AVG, about 2300 victories. So 1 victory for every 3 served just like the Lightning, but for half the price. So tell me honestly, which planes beat that other than the P-51 and Hellcat? The Thunderbolt and Corsair are about 1 Axis aircraft destroyed per 4 that served. The P-40's fought the cream of the Axis forces, the Mustangs and Hellcats fought production line produced pilots, and they destroyed 1 Axis aircraft for each 2.5 built. As for victory counts of those Axis planes destroyed on the ground, well they shouldn't be counted as they may be decoys or previously damaged planes.

 

[PAT303]

P 40's and Hurricanes bore the brunt of the fighting in Africa and the Med early in the war, they were available when needed and held the line, unfortunately neither were good enough to dominate the air and both paid dearly for their effort. In both theatres it took the deployment of better fighters, not better planes but better fighters such as Spitfires to turn the tide.

 

[drgondog]

The P-40 had a better roll rate and could out turn a P-51.

True, (slightly) below 18K but the speed advantage of the P-51 enabled it to extend or engage at will.

Which is why the P-40 continued to be useful to TAF tasked for CAS. That said, AAF-HQ made the decision to replace all P-40/P-39 in combat with P-51A/B in early 1943. You might also note that in the AAF Tactical Trials for the P-51 vs P-39, P-40 and P-38 - that the turn rates of the P-39/40 and P-51 was described as 'essentially the same' and the P-51 deemed superior (speed, climb, roll, acceleration) to the P-38G and P-47 below 18K. Also notable is that the a/c tested was a P-51-1-NA with four draggy 20mm guns..

 

[wuzak]

I've bookmarked it to read later. Frankly I think the P-40 is underrated. 7000 in US Service including AVG, about 2300 victories. So 1 victory for every 3 served just like the Lightning, but for half the price. So tell me honestly, which planes beat that other than the P-51 and Hellcat? The Thunderbolt and Corsair are about 1 Axis aircraft destroyed per 4 that served. The P-40's fought the cream of the Axis forces, the Mustangs and Hellcats fought production line produced pilots, and they destroyed 1 Axis aircraft for each 2.5 built. As for victory counts of those Axis planes destroyed on the ground, well they shouldn't be counted as they may be decoys or previously damaged planes.

From that link:

On Sunday, April 18, 1943 the U.S. Army Air Force's 57th Fighter Group stationed at El Djem, Tunisia in North Africa, on a routine mission over Cape Bon had 46 P-40 Warhawks in the air along with 18 British Spitfires flying top cover. Low on fuel and basically returning to base they came across a 100 plane flotilla of German JU-52 troop transport planes flying just above sea level over the Mediterranean, escorted by 50 Messerschmitt fighters. Catching the Germans completely off guard, while the Spitfires drew off the Messerschmitts and kept them busy, the P-40s split into pairs diving on the enemy planes tearing the transports to shreds, with an overall kill count of 77 enemy aircraft destroyed.

So the Spitfires took car of the 109s and the P-40s took on the mighty Ju 52s!

Kill counts do not tell the full story of a fighter's quality.

 

[Kevin J]

From that link:



So the Spitfires took car of the 109s and the P-40s took on the mighty Ju 52s!

Kill counts do not tell the full story of a fighter's quality.

It wasn't only Ju 52's that the P-40's shot down in WW2.

 

[wuzak]

It wasn't only Ju 52's that the P-40's shot down in WW2.

Also not only 109s and 190s.

The numbers don't tell the whole story.

 

[Shortround6]

It wasn't only Ju 52's that the P-40's shot down in WW2.

No but that account sort of describes what the high command thought of the P-40. The P-40s were not tasked with flying top cover for Spitfires. Or even with flying top cover for each other. It is hard to claim fighter A is a the superior fighter when it needs the protection or escorting of fighter B in order to accomplish it's mission/s.

That is one reason the P-38 was not used in Europe in late 1942 and most of 1943. Not that was inferior to the German fighters (it may have been but they didn't know that when the allocations of which fighters went to which theaters was made) but that the P-38 was needed to fly top cover for the P-39s and P-40s in Operation Torch, the rest of the North African campaign and for the Campaigns in Sicily and Italy. Things may not have always worked out as planned. It was also the reason the vast majority of Merlin powered P-40s went to North Africa. They didn't think the Allison powered P-40s could win on their own (or with the P-39s). By April of 1943 any Spitfire MK Vs in North Africa had long been cleared to use 16lbs of boost in combat.

Since the 57th fighter group had the Merlin powered P-40s and were still assigned Spitfires for top cover it kind of puts the Allison P-40s in perspective.

 

[P-39 Expert]

The Allison P-40's combart ceiling (1000fpm climb) was 18000' withOUT a drop tank. This always gave the opposition the first pass at them. Not good for longevity.