P-39 vs P-40

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

wuzak said:
I dunno. All this effort on behalf of the P-40 has me starting to think it is overrated.




The P-40 never served in front line units in the ETO, certainly not throughout the war.

P-36s served in the Battle of France, but not after that in the ETO.




The Spitfire was a very near contemporary of the P-36 (first flight less than a year later) and it also served to the end of the war.

And, generally speaking, it didn't seem that the P-40 was ever rated as highly as the Spitfire.
Click to expand...
There were at least 3 RAAF units still flying P40s out of the northern tip of Italy on VE day. The 450th the " desert harassers" is the one I remember off the top of my head but there were at least 2 more and I have read there were a few others but not 100% sure about those. I think Italy qualifies as Europe.
Yes I would rate the Spitfire as a better fighter of the same aproxamite vintage but that doesn't mean the Hawk wasn't a remarkable plane considering the timeframe of it's introduction. It means that the Spit was remarkable and then some.
The p40 did have a few advantages that were important in some theatres for some missions but yes if the p40 was a great design considering its vitage ( and I think it was)then even more so the Spitfire. I would agree with that but dont think it takes away from the p40 at all.
 
michael rauls said:
But then again the p51 was not as good as a F86 either.
Click to expand...

I think this is kind of the crux of the debate. It's similar to why people don't give props to the Hurricane or the A6M or the Ki-43 as well, pretty much any plane that wasn't still in the front ranks in 1945 is relegated to second tier status and disparaged, while fighters which flew in two squadrons for 9 weeks (Ta 152?) get praised to high heaven. Even though they were already obsolete because of jets, and didn't necessarily even rise above their more mundane opposition.

It's like if you didn't win the World Cup you never knew how to play football!

Not that there is anything wrong with liking end of the war fighters, they are cool and interesting too, I just don't buy the implication that everything that came before was somehow "lesser". Was a Fokker Dr.1 or a SPAD 13 a bad plane because it couldn't hang with an Me 262? Each great plane had their era and their moment, most only for a year or two in combat - if they were unusually good designs. I think you can have more fun with history if you drop the cliches and embrace the variegated strangeness of each moment for it's own logic. There was a time when the Cr 32 was one of the best fighters in the world, and there was a time when Gloster Gladiators made them look bad... and then Mc 200s made them run for the hills and so on.

To be honest though before I started really looking into the P-40, largely as the result of some of these kinds of discussions, I really didn't realize how good the record of that plane really was and for how long. Certainly the conventional wisdom leaves a lot out. I would still say the Spitfire was a better fighter overall, especially since the late versions continued to be so good all through the war. I'm not sure some of the other famous "best of the best" were as unbeatable as some claim. But most of them did have their day.
 
Again, plenty claims and counterclaims, so I'd just toss my 2 cents.

Germans certainly weren't of opinion that 1 cannon + 2 MGs in cetreline are end of discussion, since we know that they were attaching extra cannons on Bf 109 even at theaters where 4-engined bombers were not that often used, like at Eastern front, or MTO. Galland criticized the Bf 109F because it sported half the number of cannons vs. 109E, while no-one said: 'lets leave Fw 190s on just two cannons' armament' anywhere.
Soviets were also not sattisfied with firepower of their fighters, the MiG-3 got gun pods or rockets (for air combat), Yak-9T and LaGG-3-37 got 37 mm cannon, again for air combat. La-7 got 3 cannons instead of two once B-20 was available.
Not every pilot was Hartmann or Poryshkin.

Boost conversion graph, courtesy of krieghund:

EngineBoost Pressure Chart.jpg
 
Last edited:
michael rauls said:
I think the Warhawk is a really under-appreciated fighter. When one considers the design dates back to 1935( the warhawk is still a hawk even after a new type of engine just as much as a fw 190d is still a fw 190 even with a new type of engine or a Mustang is still a Mustang etc.) and that it remained in front line service in all theaters and reasonably effective right up until the end of the war is, I think, truly remarkable. Not" 2nd string" or " noteworthy because its all we had in numbers at the time of our entry into the war"or any of the other disparaging characterizations we often read about it.
.
Click to expand...

from a test conducted at Eglin Air Force base Florida 7 June 1943


FINAL REPORT ON
TEST OF OPERATIONAL SUITABILITY OF P-40N-1 AIRPLANE

a. In speed, maneuverability, and rate of climb up to approximately twenty thousand (20,000) feet the P-40N-1 is the best of the P-40 series tested to date. While the P-40N-1 is the superior in performance of the P-40 series, it is generally inferior to all other current types of fighters tested at this station.

b. The P-40N-1 is of a design which is believed to have reached its limit in performance unless major changes in control surface design, wing form, structure and horsepower are made.

rest of it can be found here. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40N_Operational_Suitability.pdf

thanks again to Mike Williams.

This tells us most of what we need to know about how the USAAF felt about the P-40 with several years left of war ahead.

The P-40 was considered by the AAF to be 2nd rate almost from the start. It was ordered in numbers in early 1939 because it was the only plane that could be produced in numbers in 1940/41 that wouldn't have been 3rd rate (or no planes at all had the Americans entered the war early).

Now some of the planes that were supposed to replace it fell on their faces, some of the engines that were supposed to replace the Allison also fell on their faces and some of the Armies more advanced concepts (pusher fighters) couldn't even make out of a chair to fall on their faces. So the P-40 soldiered on.

In some cases it was able to stay in service because it's enemies also failed to develop (or mas produce) more effective fighters and engines. In some cases it was handed out like candy to any and all nations that could scrape up a dozen or so pilots to join the allied cause (obvious exaggeration but it was used by over 20 nations, next to none of them paid for the P-40s)

having enemy development programs fail is not evidence of good planning/procurement on the US end of things. Fortunate yes, evidence of superiority? no.

In the Med the Italians were powering their planes (the ones with V-12) with a licenced 1939/40 DB 601 running on 87 octane fuel. A pretty poor combination in 1942/43.
Had the Italians been been able to use even 1/2 of the improvements of the DB601E (forget the DB605) then their aircraft would have performed much better.

In the Pacific or CBI the Japanese use of the Ki-43 from 1943 on was a total fail of planning and procurement. However good it was in 1941/43 making thousands in late 1943/44 was pretty much a waste of resources.

The P-40 wasn't a bad plane, the US was just fortunate that we had so many better ones (to go along with some of the epic fails) that spending resources on the P-40 (and P-39) in 1944 was pretty much a mistake.
 
Shortround said:
This tells us most of what we need to know about how the USAAF felt about the P-40 with several years left of war ahead.
Click to expand...

That report is one of many which created the postwar legend of the P-40. The USAAF hated the P-40 as you say almost from the beginning of the war. As soon as they learned that enemy planes flew higher and faster, and even more so once the "Bomber Mafia" achieved ascendancy in the service, and Curtiss Aircraft screwed up again and again, they were no longer in favor and neither was the Hawk family of fighters any more. The legend that the P-40 was a 'dud' was firmly in place by 1943 and was heavily reinforced in the postwar Truman Commission hearings when Curtis Aircraft was being investigated.

But lets review the history of how this has evolved for a moment.

The Trope about the p-40 that it was "slow and unmaneuverable" but "rugged and cheap" was created in memos like that. I believed it too, the only exception to the rule in fact was the AVG legend which had it's own inertia. But the two stories dovetailed. The latter made the plane popular (along with it's looks and shark mouth paint) drawing a lot of interest in the fighter which "those in the know" cheerfully debunked. AVG had success, we were told, because the IJA only had Ki 27s to face them.

Over time however data started to leak out that undermined the Trope. Swimming heavily against the current of supposed "expert" opinion several WW2 fighter pilots from the US (like Erik Schilling of the AVG, General Benjamin O Davis of the 99th FS / Tuskegee airmen, Philip Adair of the "Burma Banshees", and double Ace Robert DeHaven of the 49th Fighter Group) and UK and ANZAC nations (like high scoring aces Clive Caldwell and Billy Drake) pointed out that they did well with the fighter and thought well of it. Some writers took note of the dozens of aces on the type. But the Trope still held for the most part. I personally witnessed some debates between aviation writers like Dan Ford and AVG pilot Erik Schilling which were downright embarrassing. Disrespectful to that bright and intelligent war veteran.

In 1990 Jeff Ethell reversed his previous opinion in a now famous video in which he described the P-40 as "a pitts with an Allison" and noted that it was much more maneuverable than a P-51 (which he compared to a block of cement in comparison). Up to that point, and for long after it was still conventional wisdom from "experts" that P-40's were sluggish and unmaneuverable.

A big crack in the legend came when some of the Russian wartime records became available in the 'oughts and in interviews with many Russian pilots (like Nikolai Golodnikov) who had flown the plane in combat (as well as many others) pointed out that it was the equal of the Bf 109 to the end of 1943. Japanese records became available, and a compilation of records from the CBI came out showing that the 23rd Fighter Group and others continued the success of the AVG right to the end of the war. New Zealand pilots pointed out their record with the plane was excellent. A few hotly debated incidents with USAAF pilots in the Med emerged showing success against Bf 109s but Luftwaffe fans rationalized or minimized these as much as possible.

Then in 2007 one writer from Australia named Russel Brown wrote a book called Desert Warriors, which started checking the actual records of victories and losses. He pointed out that not of all of the experten's claims could be matched to actual Allied losses. He verified the claims of some of the stand out P-40 Commonwealth aces who actually shot down and killed several of those same experten.

And now Christopher Shores and his colleagues have done the very hard work of comparing German, Italian, RAF and American records to give us something pretty close to an accurate count of actual claims and losses in the Mediterranean. The successes of the USAAF P-40 fighter groups in particular has been an ongoing surprise to me, and has continued to change my perception of that fighter. I had assumed it had it's moment mostly in 1942, but I can now revise that and agree with the Soviet pilots who flew it that this fighter was well capable of shooting down any axis fighter right into 1944, and not just on a "once in a blue moon" fluke. And then this year I learned about the raw numbers, over 2200 victory claims in the hands of US pilots, 250 by ANZAC forces in the Pacific and at least 450 by DAF Commonwealth pilots in the Med / Middle East. That ads up to a substantial toll of enemy planes even when you account for overclaiming.




In my opinion, we are about due for a substantial re-evaluation of the aircraft. It's now widely understood that it was a maneuverable, one of the more fast rolling and tight turning fighters of the Allied side (after the Spitfire) but I think it's assessment still lags considerably from the evidence. It certainly wasn't the greatest plane of the war but it was hardly the dismal "also ran" that it gets habitually labelled as by people who should know better at this point.
 
I should say some Japanese records became available. We still don't have full access to those if they even exist. And I've still never been able to find Soviet claim / loss lists by aircraft type though there are some tidbits in the Black Cross / Red star series.
 
The Luftwaffe used a % damaged. Over 60% was a write off. The Brits used a Category - A, B, C, D, E.
 
Milosh said:
Fw190 claims Tunisia - Sicily, Nov 8 1942 to May 13 1943

Spitfire - 73
P-38 - 41
P40 - 28

These were the major types claimed.
Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, these are Fw 190s claimed shot down by Allied fighters?

Not Allied fightes claimed by Fw 190 pilots?

I ask because, to me, the way it is worded isn't clear.
 
wuzak said:
If I understand correctly, these are Fw 190s claimed shot down by Allied fighters?

Not Allied fightes claimed by Fw 190 pilots?

I ask because, to me, the way it is worded isn't clear.
Click to expand...

I thought it was FW 190 claims of victories against Allied fighters but maybe you are right... it might be the "self reported" type that shot them down as the Germans indicated this in their records.
 
Considering the next post was about how the Germans classified Fw 190 losses and damages, I think it is the claims of Fw 190s shot down by Allied fighters.

If it was Allied fighters shot down by Fw 190s, there could be some bias in the claims towards the Spitfire over the P-40, in the same way that Hurricanes shot down in the BoB were often claimed as Spitfires.
 
wuzak said:
Considering the next post was about how the Germans classified Fw 190 losses and damages, I think it is the claims of Fw 190s shot down by Allied fighters.

If it was Allied fighters shot down by Fw 190s, there could be some bias in the claims towards the Spitfire over the P-40, in the same way that Hurricanes shot down in the BoB were often claimed as Spitfires.
Click to expand...

Yes there was a lot of mis-identification particularly with victory claims, though strangely, when they indicated who shot them down they were more often correct.

So it doesn't necessarily correlate to reality, but the ratios look about right to me.

The Spitfires took the lead in Air Superiority by 1943, and if you count both RAF and the USAAF Spit squadrons there were a lot of them. P-38s were also heavily involved in the air to air fighting. P-40 units probably claimed about 3 or 4 times that many Fw 190s all told but overclaiming ratios were about 2 or 3 times the actual losses typically (it varied by unit and by day) and just as the Germans tended to assume every hurricane was a P-40 and every P-40 was Spitfire, American pilots seemed to think a lot of Me 109s were Fw 190s. Probably half of their claims were actually Messerschmits.

So 28 Fw 190s lost to P-40s doesn't sound way off.

But he could also mean Fw 190 claims against Allied fighters as I originally thought so I should probably wait for him to clarify ...
 
wuzak said:
I dunno. All this effort on behalf of the P-40 has me starting to think it is overrated.




The P-40 never served in front line units in the ETO, certainly not throughout the war.

P-36s served in the Battle of France, but not after that in the ETO.




The Spitfire was a very near contemporary of the P-36 (first flight less than a year later) and it also served to the end of the war.

And, generally speaking, it didn't seem that the P-40 was ever rated as highly as the Spitfire.
Click to expand...

The Tomahawk was operated by the RAF in 1941/42 over France for taking photos. It was faster than the Spitfire Vb below 15000 feet, but most fighting took place higher up so it was unsuitable as a fighter in the ETO with only one squadron operating it for a short time before re-equipment. Likewise the Cobra, one squadron, one mission (?) The RAF liked the Cobra but considered it unsuitable and that 6 months would be needed to sort out all its faults so they gave them to the Soviets who spent six months sorting out all its faults and operated them successfully to the end of the war. The Soviets thought the Tomahawk was the equal of the Bf 109F, the Kittyhawk slightly better. Half the top scoring Russian aces flew the Cobra.
 
Kevin J said:
The Soviets thought the Tomahawk was the equal of the Bf 109F, the Kittyhawk slightly better. Half the top scoring Russian aces flew the Cobra.
Click to expand...

The Finns kicked Soviet butts flying Buffaloes; so I guess we can infer that the USAAF should have trashed all the P-XX and just gone with the F2A. Except that it was a Navy plane, so maybe inter-service rivalry may have got in the way. :cool:
 
Schweik said:
That report is one of many which created the postwar legend of the P-40. The USAAF hated the P-40 as you say almost from the beginning of the war. As soon as they learned that enemy planes flew higher and faster, and even more so once the "Bomber Mafia" achieved ascendancy in the service, and Curtiss Aircraft screwed up again and again, they were no longer in favor and neither was the Hawk family of fighters any more. The legend that the P-40 was a 'dud' was firmly in place by 1943 and was heavily reinforced in the postwar Truman Commission hearings when Curtis Aircraft was being investigated.

But lets review the history of how this has evolved for a moment.

The Trope about the p-40 that it was "slow and unmaneuverable" but "rugged and cheap" was created in memos like that. I believed it too, the only exception to the rule in fact was the AVG legend which had it's own inertia. But the two stories dovetailed. The latter made the plane popular (along with it's looks and shark mouth paint) drawing a lot of interest in the fighter which "those in the know" cheerfully debunked. AVG had success, we were told, because the IJA only had Ki 27s to face them.

In 1990 Jeff Ethell reversed his previous opinion in a now famous video in which he described the P-40 as "a pitts with an Allison" and noted that it was much more maneuverable than a P-51 (which he compared to a block of cement in comparison). Up to that point, and for long after it was still conventional wisdom from "experts" that P-40's were sluggish and unmaneuverable.
Click to expand...

I think the actual truth is somewhere between the two extremes.

For example I have never seen any evidence of the part of the trope that says the P-40 was designed for low altitude and/or ground attack.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to the contrary. like the fact that the Army had switched to air cooled engines on all it's purpose built attack planes back in the early 30s and later the A-36 was the only Army plane with an Attack designation to see production (and that was a trick to get around a funding restriction).
Also the fact that armament of the initial P-40 prototype was rather unsuited to ground attack, standard army ground attack planes in the 1930s carried four .30 cal guns for strafing, two synchronized .50 cal guns with just 200rpg (on the prototype) is not very good for strafing. Bomb load is iffy, some sources (most) say none and some say up to six 20lb bombs which is laughable considering the bomb loads of the P-26 Peashooter and the P-35. Army went backwards in it's "ground attack" fighter?
3rd fact. The XP-40 (and all the long nose P-40s) were fitted with the highest altitude engine Allison had in production at the time, over 1000 P-40s being built before the 3rd YP-38 is built so there is no ready to go turbo installation (and early P-38s, B-17s and P-43s had plenty of trouble with the turbo installation).

AS to maneuverability. The P-36 was noted as being very maneuverable with effective and well coordinated controls. There is no reason to believe that changing the engine should change that to any great degree. Increasing the wing loading will affect stall speed and thus turning ability to some extent but roll response, rudder authority (except what may be needed to counteract long nose) and elevator effectiveness should be pretty close. The is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest the P-40 was as manuravable as plane of it's size and wing loading could be. There are no reports of ineffective alleirons at speed ( at least not to the extent that some other planes have. ) See http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg
Which shows the P-40F (and there is no reason to believe the other P-40s were much different as there is little or no mention of changes to the Ailerons between models) was among the better rolling aircraft. The chart does have few flaws or lapses like the Spitfire as with the Spitfire to cover ALL models you would need at least 4 curves and not 2. I am guessing that the Spitfire "normal wing" is with the metal ailerons and not the earlier fabric covered ones.

However "maneuverability" or sluggishness can cover a range of altitudes or conditions, so pilots comments are both subjective and often not well detailed.
The P-40 was actually pretty sleek (as were the P-39 and Allison P-51s) and could go as fast or faster than some other aircraft (SPitfires and 109s ) on the same power while weighing hundreds if not over a thousand pounds more. The problem starts coming in once you are several thousand feet above the critical altitude of the engine (FTH). The American planes are still fast but any maneuver is going to bleed off speed ( it will bleed pretty much the same speed of any opponent doing the same thing.) ANd once speed has bled off it takes the heavier American planes longer to recover the speed, or in some cases due to lower power weight ratios the engine cannot enough extra energy to the plane to keep from losing speed faster than another plane in the same maneuver and winding up slower at the end of the maneuver even if starting at the same or similar speed.
Rate of climb is a good (but not perfect) indicator of the excess energy available for maneuvering at a given altitude.
A pilot trying to intercept Japanese bombers at over 20,000ft may complain that his P-40 was sluggish or didn't maneuver well, but what is he really saying? The plane may eventually reach a high level speed but an 8000lb plane with only 700-750hp available may not accelerate like a 6000lb plane with the same amount of power.
the lighter plane may be able to perform a gentile turn (under 2 Gs) without losing speed or altitude that the P-40 cannot follow. Or the lighter plane can turn and climb at the same time and the P-40 can either turn or climb at the same speed but not both.
Now please note the P-40 may be able to trade speed for a high turn rate for limited amount of time and get into a position to fire or break from a plane on his tail but at teh cost of having to either dive to regain speed or fly straight and level while he builds speed up again.

A P-40 at low altitude (lets say under 5000 where it can really use the over boost) may have a power to weight advantage over some other planes or opponents despite the extra weight and may be able to turn with them without losing speed as the engine at 1400-1500hp may be able to replace the energy used up in the turning maneuver. Our low altitude pilot may read the comment of the high altitude pilot and, having never tried to fight at 22-25,000ft in the P-40 may think the high altitude pilot has rocks in his head.

An F4F was slower than a P-40 but once you get several thousand feet above 20,000ft the F4F had more power despite similar weight and higher drag. It's relative performance to the P-40 changed from the lower altitudes.

This was the advantage of P-40F vs the E or the K. Hundreds more HP at 20,000ft and above in a similar weight/drag airplane allowed not only better speed but the ability to maneuver without losing as much speed, It allowed the P-40F to fight at the higher altitudes and stay there vs having to dive away to regain speed/energy.

As to the Bomber mafia this may be another trope. The Army had only ordered 38 B-17s in all of 1939 (when they ordered over 500 P-40s) and only ordered another 42 B-17Ds in early 1940 and ordered the B-17E in Aug of 1940. First B-17E flew in Sept of 1941 which is after the prototype P-40F with Merlin engine (Supplied by the British as Packard was not yet in production).
At this stage of aviation technology (100/100 fuel for one thing) there was no possibility of a single engine fighter being able to escort the B-17 to the reaches of it's range. These early B-17s being rated to carry 4000lbs of bombs over 2400 miles.
Disliking the P-40 because it could not escort the B-17 seems a bit much as nothing the army even had on the drawing boards (let alone in prototype form) could perform the escort mission.
Please remember that in 1940 there was only 1 YP-38 and while it could carry 400 gallons internal for it's two engines (no self sealing tanks) it wasn't planned or plumbed for drop tanks. Therefor no possibility of escorting B-17s even as escorting was understood in 1940.

yes there is plenty of misinformation about the P-40 in print and on the web.

I would say the Army didn't hate the P-40 in the beginning but rather viewed it as an interim fighter to bridge the gap while they developed the planes they really wanted (even if they didn't really know what they were yet) See , P-43--P-44--P47 saga and see P-47A vs P-47B. they were still holding out hope that they could power something with the Continental IV-1430 :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
P-39 Turbo - Here We Go Again
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregP
GregP
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
9
Views
590
tomo pauk
tomo pauk
J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
Replies
13
Views
2K
CHen10
C
NTGray
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
20 21 22
Replies
424
Views
26K
Just Schmidt
J
tomo pauk
Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
Back