Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The US formed no new units with P-40s after 1943. A-36 units in Italy may have gotten P-40s due to shortages of replacement A-36s for a short period of time in 1944. P-40s using Allison engines may have been seen as requiring minimum training for ground crew. Units were converting to P-47s within weeks or a couple of months. The P-40s may have already been in theater and/or been planes turned in by P-40 units converting to P-47s.
By 1944 the "new" P-40s were going mostly to allies as lend lease. The last few hundred built went directly to scrap yards.
The A-36 did not enjoyed air superiority in 1943 when attacking targets 200-300 miles away from the bases. It actually served as an escort for B-25s and B-26s in 1943.
A P-40 produced in 1944 does not automatically mean it will be in USAF service in 1944. Especially not in Europe; Asia/Pacific might be different for the same user.
It's role in keeping the NAA production lines running in Inglewood surely was of great importance With that said, the A-36 flew combat missions with distinction, calling it a political airplane is selling it short.
I have said nothing detrimental about the A 36 apart from being water cooled it was vulnerable, if the US military had a budget for more fighters then the A 36 would never have flown and from that the US could have had 500 P51B/C s much sooner.
Italy had changed sides US forces took Rome on 4 July,
No RAF or USAAF aircraft were good tank busters, even those modified for that role. The P-51 was intrinsically a very good aeroplane which meant that in a ground attack/tank busting role it was inferior to some but better than most.
Cheers
Steve
What compares favourably enough to a Hurricane IId that you would say that it wasn't a good tank buster?
Even in the desert, with targets out in the open, the Hurricane pilots achieved a 10-15% hit rate with AP ammunition (depending who you believe). That's somewhat less than the Typhoons with their 20mm cannon. It's not bad, but hardly game changing.
Cheers
Steve
from wiki
Despite establishing a "reputation for reliability and performance, "the one "Achilles' heel" of the A-36A (and the entire Mustang series) remained its vulnerable cooling system leading to many of the losses.[24] By June 1944, A-36As in Europe were replaced by Curtiss P-40s and Republic P-47 Thunderbolts.[6]
so the A36 suffered because of it was water cooled and the P40 didn't?
10-15% with 40-mm?
Hurricane iiD's were mostly used in the desert against the PzII, PzIII and early PzIV, somewhat softer targets than the later uparmoured PzIV V and VI, Stug etc that operated in Italy and Normandy, also consider the visibility and low level approach advantage a gun armed tank buster had in the desert, it would be very difficult to run in low and accurately in Normandy amongst the hedges and trees!
The future policy for tank busting aircraft must be considered with relation to the general strategic situation and it is submitted that too much weight should not be attached to the experiences gained in the AFRICAN campaign. If land operations in the future are likely to take the form of opposed landings and subsequent fighting in close country, such as is found in most of EUROPE, then tank busting aircraft, as at present designed, are not likely to achieve the successes they have in the open desert country. Indeed, it is already becoming increasingly difficult to find suitable targets for them in the mountainous and wooded country of Northern TUNISIA.
.. it would probably be uneconomical to embark on large scale production of a specialist aircraft of this nature and certainly unwise to rely on it as a major battle-winning factor in future campaigns. - 12 May 1943
In Normandy the standard 75mm sherman tank armament struggled to knock out German tanks, the firefly fitted with the high velocity 17 pounder was better, good luck mounting them on any single engine aircraft. I think the Hurricane with 40mm cannon only carried 15 rounds.
The Mosquito Tsetse with a 57 mm gun would probably have been great but with its rate of fire you need your enemy to sit the tank exactly where you can hit it, plane mounted anti tank guns seem to me to be suited to the steppes or north african desert in Europe The land isnt flat enough and has trees on it.
10-15% with 40-mm?
Didn't 184 Squadron operate IIDs in NE Europe for awhile ('42-'43)?