P-40 vs. ME-109

[Kurfürst]

Interesting graphic.

Has the Spitfire IX fast cruise speed at almost 365mph (no external fuel tank) while the 109G's fast cruise speed is approx. 300mph.

Except the table does not give cruise speeds at all only max. range, and max. endurance - and the two do not occur at the same speeds.

Spitfire IX LF max speed is given as http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg 328 mph by the British datasheet. Bf 109G (DB 605A) fast cruise speeds were 595-600 km/h according to German datasheets (373 mph).

 

[billswagger]

The following are the list of combats that RAF 112 squadron had in Tunisia which should give a fair indication as to how well the P40 did against the Me109. All details from Fighters Over Tunisia

23rd Dec 2 x P40 lost 2 x P40 belly landed 1 x Me109 claimed
11th Jan 1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 belly landed
5th Feb 1 x P40 l1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 belly landed, 1 x Me109 claimed
27th Feb 1 x P40 lost. 1 x Me109 Probable claimed
7th March 1 x P40 Badly damaged
8th March 7 x P40 lost (1 pilot returned) 2 x Me109 1 x Ju87 claimed
22nd March 1 x Me109 as a probable claimed
19 April 1 x Me109 claimed
20 April 1 x Ju88 claimed

Also did the same for 68th Fighter Squadron of 33rd Fighter Group
12th Dec - 1 German claimed no type given
19th Dec - 1 x He111 claimed
21st Jan - 1 x P40 lost
3rd Jan - 2 x P40 lost
4th Jan - 3 x P40 lost 1 x P40 damaged
8th Jan - 1 x Me109 and 2 x Fw190 claimed (1 German actually lost and 1 Damaged), 2 x P40 lost
11th Jan - 1 x P40 lost 1 x Me109 claimed (but no actual losses recorded)
12th Jan - 1 x Ju88 1 x Me109 claimed
13th Jan - 1 x Beaufighter shot down, 2 x Ju88 shot down (note these were seperate incidents)
15th Jan - 1 x P40 lost
17th Jan - 1 x P40 lost
30th Jan - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
24th Mar - 5 x P40 lost 5 x Me109 claimed but only one Me109 (Richard Wolfmier) actually lost
29th Mar - 3 x Me109 claimed plus 3 x Me109 claimed by 60th FS. 4 x Me109 actually lost for 1 x P40 lost from 58th FS
31st Mar - 1 x P40 lost and 1 x P40 damaged, 7 x Me109 claimed but none lost
4th Apr - 2 x P40 lost 2 x Me109 claimed but none lost
5th Apr - 1 x P40 lost, 1 x Mc202 and 1 x Me109 claimed
7th Apr - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
10th Apr - 4 x Mc 202 claimed
23rd Apr - 1 x P40 lost on GA mission
4th May - 2 x P40 claimed 2 x Me109 claimed but no losses to either side
7th May - 1 x p40 lost to AA fire.

Note the 33rd FG unit received a Distinguished Unit Citation for action on 15 Jan 1943 but this must have been on the 13th Jan as that was the oly time they went against a large number of German Bombers destoying 12 in total.

According to German Records


Total German Claims 965

Total German Losses
Combat - 182
Accident -68
AA fire - 23
own AA fire - 3
Own Fighter - 2
Total 278

Generally speaking there is little here to say that the P40 could hold its own in combat against the Me109.

I have a hard time distinguishing anything from loss records alone. It does tell a tail, but their is no indication of combat numbers flown, for example 20 me109s vs 10P-40s, or 20P-40s vs 15 me109s.

You get a different indication depending on the material, but no question the P-40 was the underdog.



Bill

 

[Glider]

I understand what you are saying which is why I concentrated on following two of the most experienced allied units for the whole of the period. By doing that, any temporary advantages such as for instance who had the bounce or the larger numbers in a particular combat would be evened out.
Its always easy to find one particular action and put far more importance into it than it warrants.

 

[billswagger]

RAF 112 squadron was equipt with Kittyhawk III (P-40Ks) which used a more powerful Allison engine, but perhaps did not retain the altitude performance of the Merlin found in the P-40Fs.
Interesingly the Ks could fly a 500mile range with a bomb load, and a total of 1600 miles ferrie range.

The numbers indicated by the 68th seem to indicate they did a bit better, and on some days were quite victorious.
Maybe something to do with experience in the aircraft, or perhaps the use of different variant. (warhawks, aka P-40F-5-CU)

Bill

 

[Glider]

Either way the 109 was comfortably ahead in both cases.

 

[Wildcat]

For interests sake, here are the figures posted in "Desert warriors" by Russel Brown. P-40 victories in North Africa -

112 RAF - 118.5 victories for 38 operational losses

3 RAAF - 139.5 victories for 34 operational losses

450 RAAF - 49 victories for 28 operational losses.

Note - 36 of 112's and 65 of 3 RAAF's victories were achieved whilst flying Tomohawks, the rest on Kittyhawks. Operational losses included aircraft lost to AA fire, bomber return fire etc.

Going through the list of individual pilot claims for 3sqn RAAF, I count 50 Bf109's destroyed, similary for 450 RAAF I count 27 Bf109's being destroyed by it's pilots. The book doesn't list the individual claims for the pilots of 112 sqn.

 

[Nikademus]

From Shores' Fighters over the Desert , I calculated the following:

168 x Tomahawk for 47 x Bf-109
223 x Kittyhawk for 97 x Bf-109
11 x P-40F for 4 x Bf-109

summary: 402:148 (3.7:1)

From Shores' Fighters over Tunisia:

62 x Kittyhawk for 25 x Bf-109
58 x P-40F for 33 x Bf-109

summary: 120:58 (2.1:1)

 

[Glider]

I can only assume that Desert Warriors used the claimed figures. Some of these claims were clearly way over the top. Not mentioned in my list was one unit that claimed 21 Me109's in one combat over Sardinia in P40's.

Its important not to accuse anyone of misleading people but claimed figures are always very misleading.

 

[billswagger]

Its important not to accuse anyone of misleading people but claimed figures are always very misleading.

Then why did you bring them up. j/k

I think there is a tendency to over claim, maybe a damaged aircraft for a loss, for example. Happens on both sides which makes these sort of things a bit fuzzy to discuss. I saw a German documentary with subtitles, and they showed some P-40s getting shot at. You see a tracer round strike the plane and then he rolled out of the turn, perfectly intact. "THAT PLANE IS DESTROYED" says the subtitle. Probably propaganda more than anything.

I just look at the performance of the aircraft and the margin between some variants was not that far apart.

Consider the P-40K, and P-40F were the better powered versions over the P-40E and B models which perhaps help them contend better. The USAAF even concedes to the fact that the P-40F was probably the best suited for combat against the German fighters because of its better altitude performance.

Something i dont understand is that if the Spitfire was the obvious better performer, what reason did they have to continue making P-40s? Just seems they could've contracted through an American company and produced a crap load of Spitfires instead.
I'm sure there is as much politics surrounding that question as there is trying to site combat claims and losses.


The Checkertails (325th) were a proficient fighter group in the P-40s, and so was the 318th. You might read up on them too.


Bill

 

[riacrato]

How do you know he was perfectly intact? People think the majority of air to air kills resulted in giant fireballs, which is not true. Especially not in these earlier scenarios when most fighters still relied to some degree on rifle calibre machine guns.

But Glider is right, the only way to get a half decent picture of any individual combat is to look at the loss figures for each side rather than the claims made.

And if Brown's figures are indeed claims made by P-40s that were not cross-checked, that would be quite ironic, because in his book he is quick to mention that JG27 claims don't match loss records for RAF and RAAF.

 

[Hop]

Except the table does not give cruise speeds at all only max. range, and max. endurance - and the two do not occur at the same speeds.

No, they give cruise speeds. How can they be giving max enurance when they give 2 different figures? For example, is max endurance on the Spitfire IX with no tank 1.1 hours or 1.6 hours?

In fact max endurance was much longer. The Spitfire IX manual gives fuel consumption figures down to 30 gallons an hour, with an 85 gallon fuel tank, how could endurance be 1.1 or even 1.6 hours?

 

[billswagger]

i guess what i mean by intact is that no wings or tail pieces came off, and their was no smoke or fire. In fact, the plane flew out of frame.
Its probably something you'd need to see for youself before you can speculate. You'd probably agree that the plane was not destroyed as the subtitled suggests.

Its not really the point i was getting at. Combat records are full of propaganda and biased. Getting reliable unbiased research still draws questions from skeptics too.


Now back to my other question.

why not build more Spitfires since it was the better performer? Why continue to build P-40s?

American industry was perfectly cable of mass producing the Spitfire if an agreement could be made. Instead P-40s were built up until 43.


Bill

 

[riacrato]

Interesting graphic.

Has the Spitfire IX fast cruise speed at almost 365mph (no external fuel tank) while the 109G's fast cruise speed is approx. 300mph.

I don't know about you but I calculate ~321 mph for Bf 109 G and ~332 mph for Spitfire IX LF fast cruise speed from that graph. And it still could be that the two figures apply to different speeds.

 

[billswagger]

In fact max endurance was much longer. The Spitfire IX manual gives fuel consumption figures down to 30 gallons an hour, with an 85 gallon fuel tank, how could endurance be 1.1 or even 1.6 hours?

Endurance figures often include take off, climb to 10,000ft, and military output or max throttle for 10 minutes, sometimes 20 minutes to simulate combat output. Every country probably does this slightly different and usually cruise setting and altitude are specified along with consumption and combat load.


Bill

 

[Clay_Allison]

Then why did you bring them up. j/k

I think there is a tendency to over claim, maybe a damaged aircraft for a loss, for example. Happens on both sides which makes these sort of things a bit fuzzy to discuss. I saw a German documentary with subtitles, and they showed some P-40s getting shot at. You see a tracer round strike the plane and then he rolled out of the turn, perfectly intact. "THAT PLANE IS DESTROYED" says the subtitle. Probably propaganda more than anything.

I just look at the performance of the aircraft and the margin between some variants was not that far apart.

Consider the P-40K, and P-40F were the better powered versions over the P-40E and B models which perhaps help them contend better. The USAAF even concedes to the fact that the P-40F was probably the best suited for combat against the German fighters because of its better altitude performance.

Something i dont understand is that if the Spitfire was the obvious better performer, what reason did they have to continue making P-40s? Just seems they could've contracted through an American company and produced a crap load of Spitfires instead.
I'm sure there is as much politics surrounding that question as there is trying to site combat claims and losses.


The Checkertails (325th) were a proficient fighter group in the P-40s, and so was the 318th. You might read up on them too.


Bill

I don't think that the U.S. was capable of making Spitfires under license effectively. They were an expensive and complicated aircraft with a lot of sub-assemblies as I understand it.

 

[billswagger]

I don't think that the U.S. was capable of making Spitfires under license effectively. They were an expensive and complicated aircraft with a lot of sub-assemblies as I understand it.

The Packard Merlin was license built and look what innovations it was able to add to the Spitfire, specifically the dual impellers and the use of indium to help prevent corrosion. It also incorporated a more advanced supercharging system that was later retrofitted to existing Merlins and late production Spitfires.


Referencing a combat pilot, Charles Dills, who flew the P-40E, F, K, M, N and L as well as the P-47, and P-51, says that the P-40 is under rated.
His notion is that at the start of the war there was little time to engineer changes or rework designs for specific improvements. The US was burdened with supplying its air forces with enough fighters to be effective in air campaigns. As you know, first impressions are lasting impressions, however he does say the early P-40s were the lightest and that the K model was the best compromise for weight and power.
He later adds he would rather a P-40 in combat than a P-47, but there is no other aircraft like an A-36A which he preferred for close ground support.

Interesting tid biit, although anecdotal

Bill

 

[Colin1]

I don't think that the U.S. was capable of making Spitfires under license effectively. They were an expensive and complicated aircraft with a lot of sub-assemblies as I understand it.

There were no issues with US aircraft manufacture in fact, European observers commented on the high build quality. The initial problem with US fighters was suitability for role (in the ETO).

If Lockheed could turn out a relatively complex aircraft like the P-38 then I don't think a Spitfire would have posed many more problems.

Packard took on the Merlin for licence production successfully and even started feeding back improvements, I would consider the powerplant to be one of the most complex subsystems of a WWII fighter, I'm just not seeing any banana skins anywhere else in the overall manufacture of the platform; the semi-elliptical wing was becoming apparent with the P-47 and NAA were getting to grips with compound curve aeronautical design.

Where are you envisaging the problems as being?

 

[Shortround6]

The Packard Merlin was license built and look what innovations it was able to add to the Spitfire, specifically the dual impellers and the use of indium to help prevent corrosion. It also incorporated a more advanced supercharging system that was later retrofitted to existing Merlins and late production Spitfires.

Bill

where are you getting that from?

R-R designed and built the two-stage supercharger. The design was given to Packard who was already building a single stage (impeller) version. It is true that Packard designed and used a different supercharger drive/gear change than R-R.

Any evidence that a more advanced supercharger system was retrofitted to existing engines?

 

[Shortround6]

There were no issues with US aircraft manufacture in fact, European observers commented on the high build quality. The initial problem with US fighters was suitability for role (in the ETO).

If Lockheed could turn out a relatively complex aircraft like the P-38 then I don't think a Spitfire would have posed many more problems.

Packard took on the Merlin for licence production successfully and even started feeding back improvements, I would consider the powerplant to be one of the most complex subsystems of a WWII fighter, I'm just not seeing any banana skins anywhere else in the overall manufacture of the platform; the semi-elliptical wing was becoming apparent with the P-47 and NAA were getting to grips with compound curve aeronautical design.

Where are you envisaging the problems as being?

I believe it was US policy NOT to build foreign designs. THE US built NO British tank designs, Few, if any, small arms and only a few escort type war ships. The Idea being that if England was conquered the US wouldn't be stuck with a bunch of factories tooled up to produce weapons that didn't suit US requirements.
Some of the requirements may have had little practical difference in the end but they did exist. For instance the Spitfire may not have been built to the US load factor for a pursuit fighter. Yes, we wound up flying them and I am not saying that the the Spitfire didn't do an excellent job in combat but at the time these decisions were made (and it takes at least a year to tool up a factory and get real numbers rolling out the door, not a ceremonial "1st production" aircraft) the British planes didn't meet US requirements or standards.

 

[Timppa]

I have problems accepting the values.
For example AHT gives for P-51 with drop tanks combat radius of 700 miles at 25,000ft and 750 miles at 10000ft.

Combat radius is calculated by taking account of:
- warm-up and take off
- climb at normal rated power (distance covered in climb is not included)
- fast cruise (210mph ias=315 mph tas)
- combat, 5mins emergency power and 15min in military power
- fast cruise back
- 30mins reserve ( min cruise power)

The table above gives only 590 miles radius calculating fast cruise only without the above considerations ?