Performance modifications done at Squadron level. (3 Viewers)

[tomo pauk]

Hitting the aircraft skin might not even be fatal damage.

Imagine this - what if there was no armor behind the pilot in this case...

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Imagine this - what if there was no armor behind the pilot in this case...

You mean like this?

 

[Shortround6]

It looks like the shell exploded just outside the skin? The small holes below the large hole appear to be bent in and a lot of the "marks" seem to be missing paint. Certainly does not mean that there no fragments that went inside the Fuselage.
A lot of battle damage depends on whose shell it was and exactly which type of shell.
The famous German 20mm Mine shell.

Lots of HE, not a lot of metal, except for the fuse.
But at times only 40-50% of the ammo belt was filled with such rounds.
Since they could not put tracer into that shell body around 40% of the shells were these.

HE content was about 25% of the mine shell and the heavy construction meant larger fragments but not a lot of them. The entire rear portion of shell that held the tracer element might come off in one piece.
The fuses were often brass.
There were also some AP shells with base fuses and there were some AP tracer. And that is just German 20mm MG 151 ammo. Other types of German ammo or British ammo or Japanese ammo?

 

[NZTyphoon]

This is what happened to the Spitfire I, X4110 of 602 Sqn after being hit by some (probably) MG-FF/M Mine shells on 18 August 1940...total operational life = 1 hour.

Colours of mine shell would have been the same as those of the MG 151/20.

 

[Buz101]

You might be interested to know, that in two memoirs I just read by RAF / DAF Kittyhawk pilots, they both mentioned serious and virtually identical problems with the Allison engines, due they said to the dust, in particular with the bearings which would begin to disintegrate showing telltale 'silver fish' which needed to be rigorously checked for. In both cases these were pilots flying "Kittyhawk III" which could mean either P-40K or M. One pilot (Bert Horden) was in 112 Sqn RAF and one (DH Clarke) was in 450 Sqn RAAF, both operating from roughly mid 1943.

According to both pilots, if careful checking wasn't done after every mission, there was risk of a catastrophic emergency engine failure sometimes including a rupture of the crank case and a fire, according to Clarke. He also quoted some songs from 450 Sqn which bemoaned the problem. He also routinely mentions flying at 54" and 55" boost basically as soon as he saw German aircraft.

By this time (mid 1943) 112 Sqn was pretty much being relegated to fighter-bomber missions and 450 was mostly fighter-bomber strikes from the get-go I think, so it's possible they were getting clapped out planes from other squadrons like 260 RAF and 3 RAAF. But it could just mean that Allisons were not as reliable in these kinds of conditions as we have been led to believe.

The problems may be due to using high boost or may just be due to the dust, but I would guess probably both. They do also mention a filter but I guess it wasn't enough.

Just a couple of small points here, 112SQN were not "relegated" to Fighter Bomber Sorties, nor was 450 "mostly Fighter Bomber from the get go". I assume this is an accidental misinterpretation of what occurred. 450 started as a fighter Unit (actually started as a combined Unit (with 260 SQN) on Hurricanes in Mid 1941), and like all of the Kittyhawk Units changed to the Fighter Bomber role (Their first Bombing Sortie was mid Jun 42) as the Bombs were cleared for use and aircraft converted - the bombs were firstly 250lb British weapons, then continued to get heavier until a 2000lb bomb load was authorized to be used in later 1943 (most heavy bomb loads were normally around the 1500lb mark, however 500/1000lb was the standard load).

The Kittyhawk units being bomb armed gave far more flexibility and much faster turn around than the other "Light" bomber Units (Blenheim, Baltimore, Maryland Units) in the Middle East, at times the Kittyhawk Squadrons were running 4-6 operations with anything up to 40 plus sorties a day, not bad for Units running an I.E of 16 or 18 aircraft (not counting losses). Most Kittyhawk Fighter Bomber sorties were either self escorted, or covered by other Kittyhawks in the Escort role and it wasn't until later (Sept/Oct) in 1942, that Spitfires started to cover the Fighter Bomber Units.

Another quick note D.H Clarke was a flight commander in 250SQN - and a little rebellious as well (SQN markings spring to mind here) not 450SQN.

The Bearing issue with the V-1710 is an interesting topic in its own right, the early engines IIRC used lead-silver, while later engines were nickle-silver, however apart from this the only other change was how it was bonded to the bearing, which made for much less failures - earlier engines (C-15, -39 and -71) all seemed to have issues with the bearing lining and how it was bonded - after the change in bonding techniques there seemed to be less issues. The engines getting over boosted didn't help the bearing stay together, nor did the large number of engines being rebuilt and these weren't done very well (seems they also had issues binding the nickle-Silver), the engine condition being noted in many journals, diaries and in at least 1 case a formal complaint on the condition.

The formal complaint came from a SQN that collected 8 aircraft in Jun 1943, with one aircraft failing to make base due to a Crankshaft bearing failure, two others showing signs of failure (both were drained of oil after shavings were found in the Cuno filters, refilled with oil and run for 1 hour, with both showing even larger deposit after running, both were U/S'd as bearing failures). A further 13 aircraft were collected over the next 2 weeks, with one crashing due to engine failure on take off from the MU, and a further 4 having bearing failures - Many engines at this time were failing before they even made 30 hours since rebuild (Some as low as 4 hours before failing), but this also happened to be the time both the fore mentioned pilots were flying in the Kittyhawks.

Getting clapped out aircraft from 260SQN and 3RAAF (there were 8 RAF/SAAF/RAAF Kittyhawk Units at this time) is also a incorrect assumption, as at the time Horden and Clarke were at their respective Units, both 260SQN and 3RAAF were flying Kittyhawk II's with Merlin engines (although 260SQN was starting to convert to Kittyhawk IIIs).

The wire across the throttle was quite well known, and the AVG used a similar method for their V-1710C-15 engines, and regularly pushed "through the gate" as soon as combat was initiated. Compared to the Pilots notes for the Type - the differences between max boost, war rating and what was actually being used in combat could be as high as 20in.

Back to the Squadron conversion point - 450SQN did a conversion on Kittyhawk IV FT938, where they gave it clipped wings......... this however did not happen until Mid 1945......

Buz

 

[Buz101]

Yes, and Winkle Brown liked to mention the need to keep and eye on the manifold pressure.

I recall an article in Flypast I wished I had saved, but I gave the magazine to Kermit Weeks, since it had an article on the Sunderland. They found some still crated Hawk 81A and decided that while they were useless for combat in the ETO, they would make good aircraft for novice pilots to give bomber gunner trainees some practice at dealing with fast moving targets. They sent the first P-40 up, and the pilot just shoved the throttle forward and went roaring off, only to have the Allison blow its top soon after it got off the ground.

And I read of a P-40E pilot, surprised on the ground in the PI, who did a full panic takeoff as bombs fell from overhead, only to discover to his horror tat the manifold pressure gauge was reading only about 10 inches. He figured he was sunk, but he'd keep right on going away from the target area, gaining speed and altitude. Eventually he saw the gauge go DOWN further and finally figured out that the needle had gone right past the upper end of the gauge and started a new trip around the dial.

I believe the P-40M was the first with a manifold pressure regulator as standard equipment.

By the way they even added a manifold pressure regulator to the later model P-38's, even though they had a turbo with its own approach to regulation. For the photo recon birds this was a problem because the two regulating schemes fought each other, leading to a jerky flight path. This may have not been much of a problem for the fighters but for taking pictures it was unacceptable and the manifold regulators were removed at some recon units.

Errrrmmm not sure about the story on the Tomahawk as every BD flight (1681 to 1686) aircraft was in excess of 2 years old, and every one had previous service in SQN's, so found crated???? - not to sure about that, its very hard to misplace an aircraft for that long, and the timelines and Squadron use of BD aircraft is easily traced.

BD Flights got the Tomahawks after the Army Co-Op SQNs got rid of their last Tomahawks in mid 1943 (yes the Army Co-Op Sqnas had Mustangs by this time, but kept a couple of Tomahawks due to the Camera fits), and these stayed with BD fligths until mid 1944 (latest I've traced is Jul 44)

Buz

 

[MIflyer]

its very hard to misplace an aircraft for that long,

Well, I am writing from memory, but it seems that its is pretty easy to misplace them if they were bought under another country's contract and shipped somewhere else to keep them out of German hands. I do not think they ever uncrated some of the Hawk 75's the French ordered and that were delivered to French colonial possessions after the fall of France.

Another field mod made was when the 9th PRS in India modified a Lockheed F-4 with .50 cal machine guns in an effort to intercept a Japanese Dinah that was not only conducting uninterrupted recon but also supply taunting radio messages. The Dinah eventually was shot down by a stripped down P-40E, while the modified F-4 was used by the 9th for recreational strafing missions in Burma.

 

[Buz101]

M MIflyer

The Tomahawks had yet to be delivered when France fell, so all aircraft were delivered to Britain, the first arriving in Oct 1940, with all aircraft accounted for in RAF Form 78's, which show that they were used by both Fighter and (Mostly) Army Co-Op Sqn's, with all aircraft having some form of service except those that went to Russia. so none misplaced.

Hawk 75's are a different kettle of fish, and I cannot vouch for the final disposition of those, but not sure how many were sent directly to French colonial possessions. I do know that there was at least 175 aircraft that hadn't been delievered at the fall of France, but not actually looked into them.

Buz

 

[MIflyer]

No, not a different kettle of fish. Same situation, The RAF ending up using Mohawks in the CBI for quite a while.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Just a couple of small points here, 112SQN were not "relegated" to Fighter Bomber Sorties, nor was 450 "mostly Fighter Bomber from the get go". I assume this is an accidental misinterpretation of what occurred.

Not accidental, but I've followed the operational histories of these units very closely through several sources (especially Shores but also unit histories etc.) and there are different timelines as to when each of these units shifted from mostly fighter missions (fighter sweeps, bomber escort, combat air patrol etc.) to mostly fighter-bomber missions, i.e. bombing. 112 was very much a front line fighter unit producing many aces, but in mid 1943 112 Sqn seemed to shift to mostly fighter-bomber sorties, and stuck with that until the end of the war, while 450 (notably in comparison with the other RAAF P-40 unit, 3 RAAF) was mostly doing fighter-bomber missions pretty much from the get-go.

I don't think there was any official status change or anything mind you. It's just how it turned out. Partly this was the result of all the USAAF P-40F/L units arriving in Theater, as they were often flying escort for the DAF Allison engined P-40 squadrons, and the other light bombers, as well as 3 RAAF and 260 RAF which as you noted were re-equipped with P-40Fs and Ls.

The USAAF P-40 units also flew a mix of missions, but of the five fighter groups only 324th was mostly flying fighter-bomber sorties, the others were still flying a lot of escort missions etc. right up to Anzio (though some transitioned to P-47s before that).

450 started as a fighter Unit (actually started as a combined Unit (with 260 SQN) on Hurricanes in Mid 1941), and like all of the Kittyhawk Units changed to the Fighter Bomber role (Their first Bombing Sortie was mid Jun 42) as the Bombs were cleared for use and aircraft converted - the bombs were firstly 250lb British weapons, then continued to get heavier until a 2000lb bomb load was authorized to be used in later 1943 (most heavy bomb loads were normally around the 1500lb mark, however 500/1000lb was the standard load).

Yeah I'm aware. We were trying to fix a specific timeline for the different bomb loads in another thread, I'm wondering if you have exact dates?

The Kittyhawk units being bomb armed gave far more flexibility and much faster turn around than the other "Light" bomber Units (Blenheim, Baltimore, Maryland Units) in the Middle East, at times the Kittyhawk Squadrons were running 4-6 operations with anything up to 40 plus sorties a day, not bad for Units running an I.E of 16 or 18 aircraft (not counting losses).

Oh I'm well aware. They were also typically more accurate since they were flying (shallow angle) dive bombing strikes. The Blenheim was phased out pretty early. Maryland was a key bomber type for a while but shifted back to reconnaissance (I think one SAAF unit was still flying bomber sorties for a bit longer) Baltimore, Boston etc. were flying strikes and were valuable, they kind of fulfilled a different niche. The US B-24s and B-25s had probably the biggest impact on Axis airfields.

Most Kittyhawk Fighter Bomber sorties were either self escorted, or covered by other Kittyhawks in the Escort role and it wasn't until later (Sept/Oct) in 1942, that Spitfires started to cover the Fighter Bomber Units.

And at that point the Spitfires often didn't have the range. Quite often the P-40Fs were escorting the Ks and Ms and older D/E types.

Another quick note D.H Clarke was a flight commander in 250SQN - and a little rebellious as well (SQN markings spring to mind here) not 450SQN.

According to his memoir it was 450 RAF and he shows a lot of unit markings in the book ...?

The Bearing issue with the V-1710 is an interesting topic in its own right, the early engines IIRC used lead-silver, while later engines were nickle-silver, however apart from this the only other change was how it was bonded to the bearing, which made for much less failures - earlier engines (C-15, -39 and -71) all seemed to have issues with the bearing lining and how it was bonded - after the change in bonding techniques there seemed to be less issues. The engines getting over boosted didn't help the bearing stay together, nor did the large number of engines being rebuilt and these weren't done very well (seems they also had issues binding the nickle-Silver), the engine condition being noted in many journals, diaries and in at least 1 case a formal complaint on the condition.

This is indeed very interesting. Both memoirs specifically mentioned checking vigilantly for 'silver fish' in the cuno (oil?) filter. I was aware of the different bearings, crank case and crank shaft modifications, what surprised me was that these they were having problems with were mostly P-40K which had the V-1710-73 engines with most of the strengthening improvements, heat treated crank case, nitrided and peened crank shaft, indium coated bearings etc. which i would assume (and had understood) to be much stronger.

The formal complaint came from a SQN that collected 8 aircraft in Jun 1943, with one aircraft failing to make base due to a Crankshaft bearing failure, two others showing signs of failure (both were drained of oil after shavings were found in the Cuno filters, refilled with oil and run for 1 hour, with both showing even larger deposit after running, both were U/S'd as bearing failures). A further 13 aircraft were collected over the next 2 weeks, with one crashing due to engine failure on take off from the MU, and a further 4 having bearing failures - Many engines at this time were failing before they even made 30 hours since rebuild (Some as low as 4 hours before failing), but this also happened to be the time both the fore mentioned pilots were flying in the Kittyhawks.

The fact that these were rebuilds explains a lot, I think!

Getting clapped out aircraft from 260SQN and 3RAAF (there were 8 RAF/SAAF/RAAF Kittyhawk Units at this time) is also a incorrect assumption, as at the time Horden and Clarke were at their respective Units,
both 260SQN and 3RAAF were flying Kittyhawk II's with Merlin engines (although 260SQN was starting to convert to Kittyhawk IIIs).

I know that 260 Sqn did shift to Kittyhawk IIIs and then went back to IIs because their loss rate went up. This was part of the process where they ran out of Merlin 28 / Packard made XX and the RAF found a bunch of 'new' ones for them. 3 RAAF switched to the Kittyhawk IIIs earlier and didn't go back.

But the fact that these may have mostly been refurbished engines (I presume at the depot in Egypt?) means they (the engines) were re-used so that would explain the discrepancy.

The wire across the throttle was quite well known, and the AVG used a similar method for their V-1710C-15 engines, and regularly pushed "through the gate" as soon as combat was initiated. Compared to the Pilots notes for the Type - the differences between max boost, war rating and what was actually being used in combat could be as high as 20in.

I did notice in several memoirs they mention going to 55"-60" Hg as soon as they saw enemy fighters. It seemed to be pretty typical.

Back to the Squadron conversion point - 450SQN did a conversion on Kittyhawk IV FT938, where they gave it clipped wings......... this however did not happen until Mid 1945......

Buz

now that is interesting! A clipped wing Kittyhawk IV!! I'd love to learn more about that.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I don't know if that was even 20MM. You would think so, given that the George has four 20MM. And in any case I think you'd rather the shells penetrate and explore and do more damage.

Hitting the aircraft skin might not even be fatal damage.

View attachment 858270

One thing I've learned about the P-40s is that while that big armor plate behind the pilot seat saved a lot of lives (these 20mm cannon hits in just that spot seemed to happen quite often) this is also where the battery was and when it was hit the guns wouldn't work any more, so that was a problem!

 

[Steamed_Banana]

No, not a different kettle of fish. Same situation, The RAF ending up using Mohawks in the CBI for quite a while.

View attachment 859391

Recommend Shores "Bloody Shambles" Vol III if you want to read a bit about the surprisingly (to me) impressive combat history of the Mohawk in Burma.

Regarding the manifold pressure story (pilot thinking he was at 10" -20" when he was really at 60-70" due to the limit of the dial being passed) this may have happened several times, but there is an anecdote of almost exactly this story from a 75 RAAF Sqn pilot. I unfortunately don't recall who it was but it was a postwar interview so he was one of relatively few from the original group who survived the war. He mentions being chased by several Zeros over Port Moresby. He dived away but was starting from a fairly low altitude and did not manage to lose them. He said he firewalled the throttle and thought he had an engine failure because it read 10-20" Hg, but the engine kept running and he did finally outrun them pretty handily and made it back to base after a long flight over the sea. He said he got out of the plane with shaky hands and smoked a whole pack of cigarettes one after the other right there on the runway.

Regarding the wire stop on the throttle, that was standard with the P-40K, M, F, L and M. The only Kittyhawk variants that didn't have it were the D and E. And I think some E had it retrofitted as part of refurbishments (along with getting V-1710-73 engines). I'm not sure about Tomahawk variants but they probably didn't have it.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

No, not a different kettle of fish. Same situation, The RAF ending up using Mohawks in the CBI for quite a while.

View attachment 859391

Based on Shores data in "Bloody Shambles" - I would very much challenge the statement that the Mohawk was in fact inferior to the Hurricane. They certainly seemed to outperform them in terms of victories to losses in Burma / India.

 

[MIflyer]

I would very much challenge the statement that the Mohawk was in fact inferior to the Hurricane

I suspect that it would depend on the altitude they were using. The R-1820 Hawk 75's probably would have been lighter than the R-1830 versions and the Hawk 75 was noted as being even more maneuverable than the P-40. At lower altitudes the Hawks might have had an edge over the Hurricane.

Interesting data in the book "P-40 versus Ki-43" Late in the war, with Japan pressed hard in the Pacific and taking huge air losses, the units in China were told to be sure to conserve their aircraft because they were not getting any more. Even with the new Ki-44 being available they were limited in what they could do.

 

[PAT303]

This is what happened to the Spitfire I, X4110 of 602 Sqn after being hit by some (probably) MG-FF/M Mine shells on 18 August 1940...total operational life = 1 hour.

View attachment 858295View attachment 858296View attachment 858297View attachment 858298
Colours of mine shell would have been the same as those of the MG 151/20.

That pilot walked away with just a piece of shrapnel in his heal after performing a normal landing, I bet he was happy having armor.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

I suspect that it would depend on the altitude they were using. The R-1820 Hawk 75's probably would have been lighter than the R-1830 versions and the Hawk 75 was noted as being even more maneuverable than the P-40. At lower altitudes the Hawks might have had an edge over the Hurricane.

Apparently the Hawks could turn with the Ki-43s, and had very good roll as well (at lower speeds). I'd say it was a lot more maneuverable than a P-40, particularly below say 250 mph / 400 kph. I can tell you that they got shot down a lot less often than any of the Hurricane types active in Burma, given roughly equivalent situations.

Interesting data in the book "P-40 versus Ki-43" Late in the war, with Japan pressed hard in the Pacific and taking huge air losses, the units in China were told to be sure to conserve their aircraft because they were not getting any more. Even with the new Ki-44 being available they were limited in what they could do.

The P-40s did oddly pretty well against Ki-43s too of course. But the Ki-43s were shooting down a lot of P-38s and P-51As and even B-24s well into 1944. It was the Spitfire Mk VIII and the P-51 B/C/D which really turned the page on the Ki-43, but even flying those the Allied pilots still had to mind their tactics. Same with the Navy Corsairs and Hellcats which showed up, I was expecting them to sweep the skies of JAAF fighters when they arrived but it didn't seem to go quite so dramatically.

In Burma, the Ki-44 seemed to be relatively less of a factor mainly due to their short range. They were basically interceptors, they could defend a given base but that's about it. They don't seem to have been used on offensive operations. Ki-61 had potential but wasn't a game changer. The Ki-84 was the big improvement but by then, the Japanese pilots weren't as good and seemed to have lost the wildly aggressive drive they had in the early to mid years of the war.