P-40 vs. Zero

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

Just remember that at the time the US confirmation system was anything 'but' thorough.
 
R988 said:
Did they really have success in Darwin? Most of what I have read seems to say they didn't do squat, though I haven't looked at it with any detail.
Click to expand...
The numbers speak for themselfs - In looking at these numbers they are consistant with what the USAAF was doing at the same time.

Soren said:
Just remember that at the time the US confirmation system was anything 'but' thorough.
Click to expand...

Agree to a point - I think the conformation system was better in the Pacific as far as the USAAF goes. From what I understand you needed 2 witnesses and/ or gun camera, sometimes Intel team were actually sent in to look for the wreck. I won't beat a paycheck on the over-all accuracy but I think the picture did show that with P-39s and P-40s the USAAF and the RAAF were able to hold their own and them some against the Japanese.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
From what I understand you needed 2 witnesses and/ or gun camera,
Click to expand...

No that was only later on, and gun-camera footage was never a requirement, it was always welcome however.


sometimes Intel team were actually sent in to look for the wreck.
Click to expand...

Well that is pretty much true for every airforce back then, with some many times even requiring it - the Luftwaffe. The JAAF and IJN from time to time also sent out a search 'if' the situation allowed it.


In any case I pretty much agree with you FLYBOYJ, the P-40 didn't make a fool out of itself in the pacific, it did a good job against a technically superior foe and for that you can admire the plane and the pilots who flew her.
 
Soren said:
In any case I pretty much agree with you FLYBOYJ, the P-40 didn't make a fool out of itself in the pacific, it did a good job against a technically superior foe and for that you can admire the plane and the pilots who flew her.
Click to expand...
Agree, and I think that many were made to think that flying a P-39 or a P-40 in the Pacific in mid 1942 was an automatic death sentance, I think history proved otherwise...
 
This was from Wikipedia..

"South West Pacific Area P-40 squadrons were slaughtered by Japanese fighters like the Ki-43 "Oscar" and the A6M Zero in the first major battles at Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and in the Dutch East Indies. But in later battles improved tactics and training allowed the strengths of the aicraft to be more effectively utilized, enabling often outnmbered P-40 squadrons to hang on against heavy odds, and eventually triumph over the IJN and the JAAF.

The 49th Fighter Group was one of the most important U.S. fighter groups in the South West Pacific, in action from the beginning of the war to the very end, playing a key role in the defense of Darwin, Australia and Port Morseby, New Guinea. The 49th flew P-40's until they were replaced by P-38's in 1944.

Robert Marshall DeHaven was an ace with the 49th FG, scoring 10 kills in the P-40, 14 kills overall. He compared the P-40 to the P-38:

"If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. In many conditions, it could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. The P-40 kept me alive and allowed me to accomplish my mission. The real problem with it was lack of range. As we pushed the Japanese back, P-40 pilots were slowly left out of the war. So when I moved to P-38s, an excellent aircraft, I did so not because I believed that the P-40 was an inferior fighter, but because I knew the P-38 would allow us to reach the enemy. I was a fighter pilot and that was what I was supposed to do."
 
The following is taken from the book Darwins
Air War by the Aviation Historical Society Of
The Northern Territory.

The Following apply to combat with P-40's

RAID No. DATE No. of DEFENDERS (P40's) LOSSES ENEMYLOSSES
1, 19.2.42, 11, 10, 2F 3B destroyed
2B prob

6, 22.3.42, unknown amount, 0, 1F destroyed

7, 28.3.42, as above, 1 prob, 1 des. 1 dam.

8, 30.3.42, as above, 1, 1 damaged

9, 31.3.42, as above, 0, 1F des. 1B prob

12, 4.4.42, 14, 1+2crashlanded, 4F,4B destroyed
2F,1B damaged

14, 25.4.42, approx.50, 0, 3F,8B destroyed
1B damaged

15, 27.4.42, as above, 4 missing, 4F,3B destroyed
2F probable

16, 13.6.42, 36, 1+1crashlanded, 1F probable

17, 14.6.42, unknown, 1, 4F destroyed

18, 15.6.42, 28, 1+1missing, 6F destroyed
1F damaged

19, 16.6.42, 12, 3missing, 1F destroyed
2crashlanded, 1B probable

23, 28.7.42, 1, 0, 0

26, 31.7.42, 34, 1+2damaged, 6F,3B destroyed
3F,3B probable
3F,2B damaged

27, 23.8.42, 24, 1 crashed, 8F,6B destroyed
3B probable
4F damaged

35, 25.9.42, 1, 0, 0

36, 25.9.42, 1, 0, 0

37, 26.9.42, 3, 0, unknown,

38, 27.9.42, 2, 0, 0

39, 27.9.42, 1, 0, 0

40, 24.10.42, 2, 0, 0

44, 25.10.42, 4, 0, 0

46, 27.10.42, 1, 0, 0

47, 23.11.42, 1, 0, 1B destroyed
1B probable

48, 26.11.42, 1, 0, 0

49, 27.11.42, 1, 0, 0

50 20.1.43, 4, 0, 1 probable

51 21.1.43, 4, 0, 0

I cant' say how accurate these figures are but I thought they would be of interest. The losses the Japanese were taking must have been a concern because they switched from daylight to night raids after raid 27, hence the lower number of losses by the Japanese and claims by the P40's.
When they did resume daylight raids on 2.3.43, however the spitfires had arrived and soon won superiority over the Japanese. The last raid was conducted on Darwin in November 43.
 

Because everyone or it seems so, is disparaging the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk, here's something to read & mull over before doing so again.
This article proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the P-40 was a performance contemporary of the Spitfire I, 109E, Hurricane I, etc.

THE CURTISS P-40 WARHAWK

By Patrick Masell

The P-40, with the distinctive shark's mouth painted on its nose, has always been one of the most recognizable fighters of World War II. Yet few realize that it is also one of the most controversial. The Curtis P-40 is thought by many to have been slow and obsolete from its inception. Its role in the defense of the Pacific during the early years of the war has been minimized. The Warhawk was, in fact, a much better fighter than most observers believe.

There are three main reasons for this misconception. For one, the P-40 was based on an older aircraft, the P-36. The forward section and the liquid cooled Allison V-12 engine (V-1710) were new, but from the firewall to tail it was exactly the same as the P-36. Because of this, the P-40 is thought to have been obsolescent from its inception. Its naval contemporary, the F4F Wildcat (which is described as being a better opponent for the Zero by World War II magazine) was based on a biplane design! Of course, few authorities mention that. The P-36 airframe wasn't obsolete, merely proven successful. It was actually very sturdy. Secondly, newer fighters, including the P-38, P-47, and P-51 overshadowed it. Finally, its faults (and it had some--all aircraft do) were exaggerated to the point that it seemed impossible for the P-40 to succeed against any enemy aircraft. Although it couldn't out maneuver the Zero (the Warhawk's main foe in the Pacific Theater), neither could the Spitfire, Hurricane, Lighting, Thunderbolt, Mustang, Wildcat, or Corsair, but that is never mentioned.

The P-40 concept began life in 1937. It was at about this time that the United States government began to understand the position they were in. The Nazis were preparing to crush Europe and the Japanese were taking bites out of China. U.S. leaders realized that neutrality wouldn't last, and that the need for arms was great. Because of that the Army Air Corps issued a specification for a new fighter that could be produced quickly.

Several companies threw their hat in the ring with various aircraft designs. Curtiss offered their P-40 design; Lockheed came with their P-38 design, and Bell with the P-39. When Curtiss won the contract, the other companies created an uproar. They believed the P-40 was obsolescent, since much of it was based on an older design. As previously explained, from the firewall back it was the same as the previous P-36, but the engine and other vital components were new, which increased performance dramatically.

The Army wanted a sure-fire design. The twin-engine P-38 was too radical to be certain of success. It probably didn't help when the P-38 prototype crashed. One drawback to the P-38 was that it was not designed to be mass-produced. It was designed as a special purpose, high altitude interceptor. The P-38 simply could not be produced in sufficient quantity in time. Also, at the time, the Army did not foresee the need for great numbers of high altitude fighters that later became apparent. They thought a fighter's main role was ground support, and found the P-40 well suited for the job. Besides, if the Army had chosen the P-38, American pilots would have initially been outmatched in dogfights with the more nimble Japanese Zero, and probably taken as many losses as the P-40 did. In that case, I would be sticking up for the misunderstood Lockheed P-38!

Two myths about the P-40 were that it was slow and not maneuverable. Compared to later American and German aircraft with 400+ mph top speeds, a mere 345 mph at 15,000 feet (the top speed of the P-40C) doesn't seem that impressive. But remember, in 1940-41 the Warhawk's top speed essentially matched that of the Spitfire 1A (346 mph at 15,000 feet) and Bf-109E (348 mph at 14,560 feet), and surpassed the A6M-21 Zero (331 mph at 14,930 feet) and Hawker Hurricane II (327 mph at 18,000 feet).

The famous Mitsubishi Zero fighter was more maneuverable than the new Curtiss fighter was, and because of this people came to believe the P-40 couldn't out turn a hot air balloon. Of course they didn't take into account that the Zero was the most maneuverable fighter of the time. In fact, the P-40 proved in combat that it could out maneuver many of its rivals. Other positive attributes of the P-40 were good armor, firepower, roll rate, and dive speed, making it one of the best low altitude fighters of the war. Japanese pilots rated the Warhawk their most dangerous foe at low altitude. (They considered the P-38 Lightning best at high altitude and the F4U Corsair the best overall). The P-40's chief drawback was a slow climb rate, and climbing to escape an enemy was considered suicide.

Following its acceptance by the Army Air Corps in 1940, the P-40 was quickly produced and sent to several American air bases. There, the pilots were glad to get new aircraft. The British also received P-40s and matched it against the legendary Messerschmitt Bf-109. The Tomahawk (as the British called the early P-40 models--they named the later models Kittyhawk) did well in combat with the famous German fighter. Although it was a bit slower and outclassed in rate of climb, its good dive speed, superior armor, maneuverability, and armament made the Tomahawk a force to be reckoned with. The Germans felt that it was a more dangerous opponent than the Hawker Hurricane. In fact, the British wanted to replace their old Hurricanes with new P-40s. Other countries that operated P-40s (early P-40, B, and C export models were referred to as the Hawk 81A by Curtiss; later P-40D, E, K, and M export models were known as the Hawk 87A) included Canada, Russia (the USSR), Brazil, New Zealand, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, and China, among others.

The specifications for the numerous P-40E-1 of 1941 (also Hawk 87A-4 and Kittyhawk IA), which are similar to the entire series of P-40E, K, and M models, are as follows (taken from The Complete Book of Fighters by William Green and Gordon Swanborough): Max speed, 362 mph at 15,000 feet; Time to 5,000 feet, 2.4 minutes; Max range, 850 miles at 207 mph (with drop tank); Armament, six .50 inch (12.7mm) wing mounted machine guns; Empty weight, 6,900 pounds; Loaded weight, 8,400 pounds; Span, 37 feet 4 inches; Length, 31 feet 9 inches; Height, 12 feet 4 inches; Wing area, 236 square feet.

On December 7, 1941 a large Japanese air armada attacked the U.S. Navy base at Pearl Harbor, and all of the nearby airfields. This is where the P-40 first defended American soil. Unfortunately, few American fighters were able to get into the air; most were destroyed on the ground. Two pilots, George Welch and Kenneth Taylor, managed to take off and shot down several Japanese planes. From this time onward a great responsibility fell on the P-40 pilots' shoulders. In order for the U.S. to win the war, air superiority must be wrested from the Japanese. Otherwise, their bombers would be able to fly unopposed over Allied ships and territory. I've read descriptions of the Warhawk that would lead you to believe that it was the worst possible fighter for the job. Yet, it was able to do just that for the first two years of the Pacific war, and continued to help do so until the end of the war.

The P-40's first fame came at the hands of the now legendary Flying Tigers, a group of American mercenaries who volunteered to defend China against the Japanese. Well before the war reached America, President Franklin D. Roosevelt realized that the U.S. would eventually be drawn into it. Most Americans felt strongly about staying neutral, but Roosevelt wanted to aid the Allied powers against the fascist juggernaut. However, an election was coming and his toughest rival was a strong isolationist. Political expediency demanded that he promise continued neutrality (sadly, not the last time an American president would deceive the electorate). The A.V.G. (American Volunteer Group) was a way around this. The program was to send volunteers from the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine air corps to China, along with U.S. fighters, and establish three squadrons to combat the threat from the rising sun. Colonel Claire Lee Chennault headed the operation. He pieced together a fighter group and shipped them to China with 99 (a crane mishap destroyed the 100th) new P-40 (actually export model Hawk 81A-2) aircraft originally intended for British use. Aircraft numbers 1 through 33 formed The Adams and Eves, 34 through 66 made up The Panda Bears and 67 to 99 created the most famous of the three squadrons, The Hells Angels.

During the following weeks Chennault ran his crews ragged, training them to fly and maintain the P-40. He understood its shortcomings, mainly inferior turn rate and a slow rate of climb, and taught his men to maximize its effectiveness by using the P-40's superior top and diving speed to hit and run. He also preached fighting in pairs, rather than in Vics of three or singly, as Japanese doctrine taught. It took time, but by early December 1941 the A.V.G., with ferocious looking shark's jaws painted on their P-40's (an idea copied from the RAF's No. 112 squadron), was ready for action. By this time 33 planes had already been lost, mostly due to pilot error.

Their first big chance came on Dec. 8, a day after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. They attacked ground targets and engaged enemy aircraft in defense of the Burma Road, China's only supply line to the West. For the next 6 months this rag-tag band of volunteer pilots racked up an amazing record against overwhelming enemy numbers, earning the A.V.G. the nickname "Flying Tigers".

On July 4, 1942 the Flying Tiger's contracts were due to expire. After that, the U. S. Army intended to take over and make this back into a military group. Nearly all of the volunteers objected to this, including Col. Chennault, who tried to prevent it. But there was no reasoning with the Army; so on July 4th the group that had single-handedly defended the skies over China was disbanded. Most of the Flying Tigers went back to their old units. Only five pilots stayed with Chennault to help train the newcomers. The records show that after only 6 months of combat the Flying Tigers had shot down 297 enemy aircraft confirmed, and another 153 probable, for only 12 planes lost in air combat. But 57 of their original 99 P-40's were no longer air worthy due to combat damage, pilot error, maintenance problems, or just being worn out.

The dissolution of the A.V.G. was by no means the end of the P-40's involvement in China. The Army sent updated models of the P-40 and fresh pilots to form the China Air Task Force (CATF). Chennault (now a Brigadier General) tried his best to make it the most effective outfit possible. When the new pilots arrived in China, they found themselves in a difficult position. They were isolated in a remote theater, with the giant Himalayan Mountains to their backs, which allowed only a trickle of supplies to come through. Also, they were outnumbered more than 3 to 1 by the Japanese. The CATF's entire complement of Warhawks did not equal the number of planes assigned to just one of the Japanese airbases in the area. In nearly all of their engagements they found themselves heavily outnumbered. In one such engagement, 21 P-40s tangled with 45 Oscars. The result was 27 enemy aircraft shot down with no losses. It was one of the greatest victories enjoyed by the CATF. But eventually the China Air Task Force was defeated, not by Japanese planes, but by a lack of supplies, spare parts, and the spread of disease. At the end few of their P-40s were even capable of flying. Yet by the time it was disbanded, on the 19th of March 1943, the CATF had shot down 149 enemy aircraft with another 86 probable, for only 16 losses.

Records of success in combat like these were not isolated to the Pacific Theater. In Italy the 325 Fighter Group, commonly know as "The Checker-Tailed Clan" amassed one of the best kill to loss ratios of any fighter group in the European Theater. With a yellow and black checkerboard adorning the tail of their P-40s (and later P-47s and P-51s), they flew many sorties against more numerous German forces, and won most of the time. In 1943 the 325th won two major engagements. On July 1, 22 checker-tailed P-40s were making a fighter sweep over southern Italy when they were jumped by 40 Bf-109s. After an intense air battle, the result was half of the German aircraft shot down for the loss of a single P-40. There was a similar situation on the 30th of July, again over Italy, when 35 Bf-109s ambushed 20 P-40s. On this occasion, 21 German fighters were shot down, again for the loss of a single P-40. Because the pilots of the 325th were trained to maximize the P-40's strengths and minimize its weaknesses, it became a lethal opponent for the German fighters. The final record of "The Checker-Tailed Clan's" P-40s was 135 Axis planes shot down (96 were Bf-109s), for only 17 P-40s lost in combat.

These are just three examples of the Warhawks effectiveness in air-to-air combat. Consider the New Zealand Air Force's record: 99 confirmed kills and 14 possible, for only 20 P-40s lost in combat.

Still, by 1944 the P-40 was being supplanted by newer fighters, and production of the final (and most numerous) version, the P-40N, ceased in December of that year. By 1945 all European Warhawk squadrons had switched to either the Mustang or Thunderbolt, and the only active P-40s were in the China-Burma-India Theater. Altogether, a staggering 13,738 P-40s were built during WW II, making it the third most numerous American fighter of the war (slightly behind the P-47 and P-51, but ahead of the P-38 and all others).

After the war, the Truman Committee investigated why the P-40 was used until the end of the war, even when higher performance fighters were available. They concluded that the Army did not continue to order P-40s due to "outside influence." Perhaps the obvious answer is the right one: the USAAF ordered so many P-40s because they did a heck of a good job!

The Second World War ended in September of 1945, but the P-40's career did not. Although the U.S. Army Air Force retired the P-40, it continued to serve with the air forces of smaller nations into the early 50s. Eventually, age and changing times got to the old war-horse and, like all of its piston-engine peers, it had to yield the skies to the jet age.

It is unfortunate that, even with all its victories, the P-40 appears on many people's "worst fighters of WW II" list. At best it is considered mediocre. Even though it served brilliantly, frequently fighting against the odds, and amassed an exceptional kill to loss ratio, it is still often thought of as a slow, unmanuverable, and obsolescent fighter. It fought in the Pacific against overwhelming enemy numbers, flying in some of the harshest conditions to be found on earth, and held the line for two years, until newer planes could be brought into service. After all that, it defended other (smaller) countries for several more years. Because of its achievements, I feel that the rugged, dependable, gravely misunderstood P-40 deserves to be considered one of the most successful fighters of World War II.

In these times of supersonic jets firing guided missiles at targets many miles away, the Warhawks of WW II, armed only with short range machine guns and their pilots' skill, seem almost quaint. Although collectors restore these old war birds, and a few lucky people at air shows occasionally get to see one of them fly, it will never be possible to restore the glory of the days when they were the Tigers of the sky.
 

Two myths about the P-40 were that it was slow and not maneuverable. Compared to later American and German aircraft with 400+ mph top speeds, a mere 345 mph at 15,000 feet (the top speed of the P-40C) doesn't seem that impressive. But remember, in 1940-41 the Warhawk's top speed essentially matched that of the Spitfire 1A (346 mph at 15,000 feet) and Bf-109E (348 mph at 14,560 feet), and surpassed the A6M-21 Zero (331 mph at 14,930 feet) and Hawker Hurricane II (327 mph at 18,000 feet). Plus if was so inferior, explain this list of P-40 Aces shooting down mainly BF109s & Zero's.

http://www.p40warhawk.com/WW2_Era/Aces/Aces.htm

The A.V.G./Flying Tigers, had an 11-1 Kill Ratio, if I did my calculations right, against the Japanese in Chinese Air Space, downing 268 A/C while only loosing 15 of their own in combat.

The P-40 had a Superior Dive Speed of 480mph, but was noted to be able to exceed 500mph w/o a problem, it also had better Lateral Maneuverability, a better Role Rate, a quick reacting pilot could use a Snap Role to bring his guns to bare in front of the quicker turning Axis Fighter & it would fly into the P-40's burst shredding it, better Armour for the pilot, better Structural Integrity, which could exceed 9Gs, read the account below, Firepower was considered on par to the BF109 & the Zeros, its Single Speed Supercharger caused a Slow Climb Rate, 4.1 mintues to 5,000ft & Poor Performance above 15,000ft, but.....

While flying top cover for supply planes inbound for Tobruk, Pilot Officer Clive Caldwell, Australia's top-scoring Ace encountered two Bf-109's led by the 114-victory ace Werner Schroer who ambushed him. The German planes punched 108 machine gun bullets and five 20mm shells into the hapless fighter, damaging its instrument panel, controls, tail, wings, and wounding Caldwell in the back, shoulder and leg.
Instead of crashing to the ground, the Tomahawk managed to stay airborne. And instead of attempting to escape, the Sydney-born Caldwell turned into his attackers and returned fire. He shot down Schroer's wing-man, unnerving Schroer to the point that he ran for home. The Australian Ace made it home. Caldwell downed 20 & 1/2 of his Kills out of his 28 & 1/2 Kills flying the Kittyhawk IIa.

In Italy on 1 July 1943, 22 P-40's of the U.S. 325th Fighter Group made a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109's surprised the Checker Tails, engaging them in between 9,000ft to 12,000ft where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Luftwaffe lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back.

A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40's were bounced by thirty-five BF109's. The Luftwaffe limped home after losing 21 of their own while the Checker Tails came through with only one loss. The Luftwaffe lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109's) to the pilots of the Checkered Tail P-40's while shooting down only seventeen of the 325th.

P-40 Ac
 

We've dealt with the erroneous information about the 325th FG previously in this thread. To summarize:

The event on 30 July 1943 was nowhere near as one-sided and the numerical advantage was with the P-40s.

In reality, there were 36 P-40s from the 325th FG (20 from 317th Fighter Squadron and 16 from the 319th Fighter Squadron). The Luftwaffe serviceability report for 29 July reported a total of 25 serviceable Me109s available (there were only 34 present in total according to the orbat) so there couldn't have been 35 Bf109s in the sky during the engagement. The Luftwaffe serviceability report for 29 July 1943 is as follows:
II / JG51 had 5 Bf109s of which 2 were serviceable
III / JG77 had 29 Bf109s, 23 of which were serviceable

Only JG77 was involved in this engagement - JG51 didn't fly on 30 July (no surprise since they only had 2 serviceable aircraft). One aircraft of JG77 was engaged in a reconnaissance mission away from the area of the combat with the 325th (it, too, was shot down but by other Allied fighters) leaving a max of 22 Bf109s for the engagement with the 325th.

The 325th FG flew the sweep from 08:00 to 11:05, and made claims from 09:45 to 10:15. Final claims tally was:
- 21 Bf 109s destroyed
- 3 Bf 109s probably destroyed
- 1 Mc. 202 probably destroyed
- 3 Bf 109s damaged

III/JG 77 scrambled from Chilivani at 09:25. Four Bf109s from the Gruppe were shot down, with one pilot killed and three wounded. A first-hand account from Eduard Isken mentions the presence of Lightnings as well. III / JG77 pilots claimed five P-40s shot down between 09:40 and 10:10.

Only one of the 36 American aircraft involved was lost on this mission, and none were damaged. Lt. Bob Sederberg failed to return, and was taken prisoner.

Clearly, the P-40s came off better in the fight but even if the entire Gruppe strength was involved, they were still at a 39% numerical disadvantage. For the record, the sole MC202 claimed as Probably Destroyed was mis-identification. No Italian fighters reported engagements on this date in the vicinity so we can't make a case for misidentification of C202s for Me109s.
 

Hello, and welcome to the forum.
Methinks that you'd see that people here don't dismiss the P-40 lightly. Most of them also lift an eyebrow when phrases like 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' are posted, me included. Thus I'll post the relevant parts that are going a bit or more over-board, along with my comment. 1st being that, by the time P-40 was 1st delivered to the USAAC serivce (summer 1940), the European fighter listed were old news, with new or improved models coming out.



As above - most people here don't believe that P-36 and/or P-40 were obsolescent when 1st delivered.


All of those fighters listed (P-40 included) were able to out-roll the Zero above certain speeds, the P-40 probably being the champion between the listed A/C. Rate of roll 'belongs' to maneuverability of any given aircraft.


There was no uproar from other companies.
(X)P-38 was awarded by a on June 23rd 1937, (X)P-40 was awared on July 30th 1937, (X)P-39 was awarded by October 7th 1937.
It was engine choice that increased the performance drastically vs. P-36, other vital components remained the same as with P-36.


Oh, the Army did foresee the need for great numbers of high altitude fighters in late 1930s. Hence the turbos on the Airacuda, XP-37, P-38, XP-39, P-43. Beauty of the P-40 was that it was still judged as very useful fighter, and commonality with P-36 indeed increased the odds of getting those useful fighters in good numbers during the short peroid of time - a quality the fighters I've listed were not able to match.


The 1st sentence hits away from the mark.
The P-40 was a fighter, it won a contract for a fighter, it was issued to the fighter units, and was ordered abroad as a fighter. A pair of LMGs, a pair of HMGs and no bombs = lousy ground support. The Army actually choosen the P-38 before they chosen P-40. The P-38 was a faster fighter than P-40, especially at altitude, with greater range/radius and firepower - trying to engage in a dogfight with a nimble aircraft would've been a faulty decision by the P-38's pilot.


There is 1940, and there is 1941.
The P-40C, 1st delivered in March 1941, is a contemporary of Spitfire V and Bf 109F1 and F2. Both of whome were capable for 370+ mph, and, what is of about equal importance for the ongoing European air war, they were especially faster as altitude increased. They also climbed much better.
Indeed, the Zero and Hurricane were slower than P-40 in 1940 and '41; Hurricane was probably always slower than P-40, being an older design (both shortcoming and advantage for a weapon system).
If we want to choose fast US fighters in 1941, those are P-38 and P-39C, 370+ mph; obviously too late for 1940.


This is allpying to wide a brush for the P-40 models. The P-40E and K were lucky to top 340 mph at 15000 ft. The P-40M was in a better positon due to the improved model of the V-1710 installed, with better altitude performance. The range was 1100 miles for the -E with 75 gal drop tank.
If I may suggest the book named 'America's hundred thousand' as a premier resource for US fighters. The wwiiaircraftperformance.org is also a great resource.


The 1st combat was on December 20th 1941, not Dec 8th.


Curtiss botched up the license production of P-47s, this is why the P-40s were still being produced from 1943 on. Let's recall that neither USAF nor RAF used P-40s in the ETO, where real performance at all altitudes was expected vs. the Luftwaffe.


The post war carrer of the P-40 was far shorter than of Spitfire, Bf 109, Fw 190 or P-51.

It is unfortunate that, even with all its victories, the P-40 appears on many people's "worst fighters of WW II" list. At best it is considered mediocre.
Click to expand...

Anyone that puts the P-40 on the 'worst fighters list' has plenty, plenty of reading to do.
 
If I may add to Tomo's remarks. The US, in a pilot's manual dated 1943 (it could have been Dec, I don't know) was telling pilots training on the P-40 that no new units would be formed using P-40s and indeed in late 1943 and 1944 existing US P-40 units were being re-equipped with other fighters as fast as the supply situation would allow. The P-40 was kept in production in 1943/44 primarily for lend lease, with fighter trainer and replacement aircraft for units that couldn't convert to newer fighters being the secondary reasons. In 1944 the last few hundred P-40s off the Production line went straight to the scrap yards.

I have no idea where the oft repeated story of the P-40 being designed for ground support comes from. The P-40 used the highest altitude rated engine available in the US in production form at the time. It may have been purchased to accompany ground attack planes, the USAAC having ordered about 190 A-20s in May-July of 1939. The older P-35 carried a much higher bomb load than the early P-40s did. Combine that with the fact that the USAAC had switched from liquid cooled engines to air cooled engines for ground attack aircraft back in 1932 and would buy NO liquid cooled attack aircraft until the A-36 in April of 1942 and that was more of a funding trick to keep the Mustang production line rolling than a real desire to shift back to liquid cooled engines.

The P-40 certainly did a lot of good work in the early part of the war and is often under rated but the Army never intended it to be the US's primary fighter. It was always the interim fighter that could be built quickly to equip the expanding air corp and replace even older equipment while the fighters the Army really wanted were de-bugged and placed in production.
Please remember that in 1939 there were only 3-4 production lines in the US building fighter aircraft (or in existence having completed an order) Bell had built less than 2 dozen aircraft in the companies existence. Lockheed was working flat out to build Hudsons for the RAF.
Only Republic and Brewster had actual production lines for fighters in the spring of 1939 and perhaps a discrete curtain should be drawn over their ability to deliver large numbers of aircraft in a timely fashion. One reason for the P-36 order being the slow delivery of P-35s several years earlier. Grumman had gotten an order for 27 F3F biplanes back in 1938 as "fillers" until the F2A and F4F could be developed. first production F4F isn't delivered until spring of 1940.
 
14th AF pilots clamored for P-51s even if only the P-51A for the obvious advantages of speed and range. The one shortcoming the P-51 had over the P-40 was the Mustang's cooling system was more vulnerable to damage. The P-40 had everything tucked up under the engine, the P-51 had the radiator in the mid-fuselage with plumbing running between it and the engine creating a larger area of vulnerability.
I would disregard one-sided kill ratio claims, unless you are willing to accept the claims of their opponents as equally valid.
In John Ford's Flying Tigers, he matches combat reports of AVG and IJAAF to illustrate the often wildly inaccurate claims of both sides.
Luca Ruffato and Michael Claringbould in the excellent Eagles of the Southern Sky, compare claims and losses involving the Tainan Air Group in New Guinea in 1942.
Christopher Shores has spent a lifetime researching and bringing into perspective the claims and losses of the various air forces in many theaters. One thing that stands out is that the Luftwaffe claims tend to be far more accurate than anyone else's. Though the arrival of the "Curtisses" in North Africa was initially anticipated with some trepidation by the Luftwaffe, they quickly found that the Tomahawk was not superior to the older Bf-109E and clearly inferior to the Bf-109F. It didn't help that the WDAF had yet to adopt the more flexible "finger four" formation, relying on the inflexible "vic" and other tactically inferior formations. Line astern with weavers, anyone?
 

(my bold)
A bit on this old chestnut. The number of supercharger speeds was just a small part of reasoning to why P-40 was underperforming at some altitude belts, especially the rate of climb being poor. The P-39, P-51 and P-51A, Spitfire I/II/V and MiG-1/3 used single-speed superchargers but were faster and sometimes climbed better than P-40. The 2-speed supercharged Packard Merlin, with much greater altitude power than the early V-1710s, was unable to turn the P-40F/L into a performer. Conversely, the P-40 was sometimes out-pacing the aircraft with multi-speed supercharged engines, and sometimes even the fighters with 2-stage supercharged engines, like the F4F.
So what are the other reasons? The P-40 was heavier than most of the listed aircraft, mostly due to big (= heavy ) fuel tankage, heavy armament package from E model on, considerable strength, and useful protection. Despite all of the listed heavy items, the powerplant was barely upgraded during the life time, ie. no big V12, no 2-stage V12 (apart from prototypes), not even a big radial engine. Let's recall that a good part of Zero and Oscar performance was due to absence of protection for pilot and fuel tanks; once the protection and armament was improved on the Zero, the speed and RoC took a hit.
P-40 was a much bigger A/C than Bf 109, MC.202 or Soviet fighters, it was even biggere than the Fw 190 - size matters here, and big weight does make aircraft under-perform. Again, conversely the still bigger Hurricane and F4F were in further peformance disadvantage, despite the engines of better power above 10000 ft.
So unless the P-40 gets the 2-stage supercharged V-1650 or V-1710, or the protection, firepower and range are sacrified, it will remain underperformer from 1941 on.
 
Again a very good post by Tomo. I would note a typo or mistake in the bolded part.

"...caused a Slow Climb Rate, 4.1 mintues to 5,000ft..."
Any P-40 that took 4.1 minutes to climb to 5000ft was in serious need of engine work, needed the blockage taken out of the throttle/linkage or was carrying a higher than normal load of bombs.
Figures from a pilots manual for the P-40D-E are even at 8700lbs 1.5 minutes using full throttle (3000rpm and 44.6in map) while there is a listing of 4.4 minutes to 5000ft it is also at 8700lbs but using 2300rpm and 28in map.
8700lbs would include a full 52 gallon drop tank or a 500lb bomb with slightly reduced internal fuel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
S
Spitfire vs. Dora mass battle
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
spicmart
S
Vickers Wellington vs. Warwick
Replies
6
Views
545
SaparotRob
A
Italy VS USA: Different ways to improve the P-35
Replies
14
Views
2K
Jugman
J
Menu
Log in
Register