Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Interesting. However, my memory is a little fuzzy here so forgive me if im wrong but didn't the 8th air force allow ground kills to be added to totals. I seem to remember iether they were the only air force to do this or alowed it before others not sure which. If so this would seem to more than balance out any confirmation standards by theater.
As far as distribution of gun cameras the majority of p38s had them so I wouldn't think that would be a huge discrepancy.
No, ground kills were not officially counted as kills.
Wow, ive read that so many times from so many sources but who knows maybe your right.No, ground kills were not officially counted as kills.
That is true and I'm sure a real quote - they never had the same (speed / altitude) performance, but they did have other advantages they could use.
Still I'm sure for fighter pilots they hated giving up the initiative and being attacked from above. Not as big a problem for the Merlin hawks since they were comfortable much higher up - but still a problem.
One thing that did happen though was that as the Bf 109s got faster, especially with the G-6 and later, they also got heavier and less agile. I think the G-6 took more losses than the F-4.
Merlin hawks were powered by single stage two speed Merlin 28s.
What does Post #11 say?
Yes and the Merlin hawks had a critical altitude of about 20,000 ft vs about 16,000 for P-40B, 17,000 for P-40M and 12,000 for P-40E or K
See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg
P-40F/L could fight up to about 25-28,000 ft depending on who you ask.
That is true and I'm sure a real quote - they never had the same (speed / altitude) performance, but they did have other advantages they could use.
Still I'm sure for fighter pilots they hated giving up the initiative and being attacked from above. Not as big a problem for the Merlin hawks since they were comfortable much higher up - but still a problem.
One thing that did happen though was that as the Bf 109s got faster, especially with the G-6 and later, they also got heavier and less agile. I think the G-6 took more losses than the F-4.
No, they could struggle up to that height. fight is a different story.Yes and the Merlin hawks had a critical altitude of about 20,000 ft vs about 16,000 for P-40B, 17,000 for P-40M and 12,000 for P-40E or K
See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/Kittyhawk_II_performance_9sept42.jpg
P-40F/L could fight up to about 25-28,000 ft depending on who you ask.
So, here's where I'm at with the P-40, which is my favorite fighter although in fact it was indeed a pursuit plane in the classic pre war nomenclature.
Escort for high altitude bombers? No way. Interceptor? No way UNLESS an inordinate warning time was available, as in China. Offensive fighter sweep fighter in conjunction with top cover. Good. Same for ground attack. Bottom line is that there was no real concept for the P-40 when the real war started.
No, they could struggle up to that height. fight is a different story.
Just FYI - it's a common myth that P-40s usually operated with top cover in the Med - this is one of the things often brought up to explain lopsided victories by P-40 squadrons against Bf 109s and MC 202s on a few occasions. However most of the time the P-40s had no top cover.
Up until June 1942 P-40s were the top cover in the Med, flying escort to medium bombers other (older) P-40s or Hurricanes carrying bombs. There were (almost) no Spitfires in the Theater.
Spits arrived in the Summer of 42 and very gradually ramped-up in numbers, but P-40s were still usually operating without top cover. P-40s had longer range than Spitfires, and the two types typically operated in different areas, while P-38s were usually assigned to escort heavy bombers.
So for example on their famous victories during fighter sweeps over Sardania etc. in 1943, 325th Fighter Group P-40Ls were flying all on their own. That unit, 325th FG was assigned as the escort squadron for a wing of B-26 medium bombers.
Similarly in the Pacific and CBI P-40s were usually the only fighters available and did not have top cover.
You may very well be right about that. Wouldn't be the first time something I've read for years or even decades turned out to be baloney. Was hopping i would have some time this evening to try and research it but worked late so that will have to wait for another day.No, ground kills were not officially counted as kills.
The KI-44 was less maneuverable than the KI-43.In any theater, P-40s were totally vulnerable to being bounced from above, especially in an "interceptor" role. In China, that became real problem when the Japanese turned the tables on the P-40 equipped groups and started using dive and zoom tactics with the Ki-44. There was no theater or environment in which the P-40 was in its element. P-40 pilots always had make do and adapt. It was a stop gap fighter that could be massed produced when we needed it and served relatively well given the circumstances. But, they were kept in production way too long, probably because it was still a viable export aircraft and considered "good enough" in the Pacific and China.
The Japanese Army's Ki-61 "Tony" fighter seems to have a similar performance envelope to the later P-40, and the Ki-61 hada hard time intercepting the B-29, likely for similar reasons. (Here's a thread that compares the Ki-61 to the P-40L. Kawasaki Ki 61-1 Hien vs Curtiss P-40L Warhawk)In Bill Bartch's book Doomed At The Start, a 24th PG P-40 pilot described one of the few practice interceptions of B-17s done prior to the war. In essence he said that they were able to make one pass at them and then the B-17s ran away from them. I think it's safe to assume that the P-40s were already at the B-17's altitude, mimicking an interception with adequate early warning. The key word in your comments above is acceleration, especially when the P-40 is operating above 12,000 to 15,000 feet. Higher maximum speed than say, a Ki-43 or A6M is not worth much if it takes all day to get from cruising speed up to combat speed.
The KI-44 was less maneuverable than the KI-43.
It's only strong point was it's heavier armament and even then, the KI-44 and KI-44-II weren't available in any great numbers until 1943/44
And the P-40 was used to being bounced from above, that was the IJN's favorite tactic - from above and out of the sun. The AVG was well aware of this and their countermeasures were to turn into them and face them head-on. Old-school tactics.
The Ki-44 was faster than the P-40 and had a much, much better climb rate.The KI-44 was less maneuverable than the KI-43.
It's only strong point was it's heavier armament and even then, the KI-44 and KI-44-II weren't available in any great numbers until 1943/44
And the P-40 was used to being bounced from above, that was the IJN's favorite tactic - from above and out of the sun. The AVG was well aware of this and their countermeasures were to turn into them and face them head-on. Old-school tactics.
The Ki-44 was faster than the P-40 and had a much, much better climb rate.