Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The VVS preferred the Kittyhawk to the Spitfire Vb. It had overboost too.The Spitfire V was a much better air to air fighter than the P-40E; I do not think anyone would dispute that. I don't think anyone would prefer flying P-40E to a Spit V in air to air combat. But even the E model P-40 was a vastly better fighter bomber than any mark of Spitfire, having more range, a larger bombload, built stronger, and being more resistant to ground fire. I even recall one highly experienced WWII/Korea fighter pilot saying he thought the P-40 was a better fighter bomber than the P-51, because you were much less likely to get hit in the nose radiator rather than one on the belly.
But to see them conclude that the P-40E was as good or better than the Spit V below 16,000 ft, including having a higher roll rate is surprising to me.
It is not hard to see why the Kiwis and Aussies were fairly pleased with the P-40 in the Pacific, or that the RAF in Europe kept flying P-40's in the fighter bomber role all the way into 1945.
But to see them conclude that the P-40E was as good or better than the Spit V below 16,000 ft, including having a higher roll rate is surprising to me.
If you're going to pick and choose your Spitfire, then you might was well pick and choose your P-40. I'd try the P-40F or P-40M if you're going to use an LF Spitfire. If I could pick ANY P-40, I'd take an XP-40Q-2/3! The LF Spit might not know what hit him.
Of course, you could also choose a Spit XIV.
So, we might as well just let the Mk.V and the P-40E go and accept the existing report ... maybe. Perhaps there is another report on comparative combat between two different models of Spitfire / P-40. I haven't heard of THIS one until now ... so maybe there are more?
If you're going to pick and choose your Spitfire, then you might was well pick and choose your P-40.
Remember........ the P40 F used the Packard built V1650-1 merlin with the 2 speed supercharger and it did NOT perform as good as the Allison version did !!!! The shitfire Mk V and the P40 E matched up in time line, produced at about the same time and this proves why the Brits thought the P40 was the BEST AVAILABLE fighter of the time when they came to North American to see IF North American would build the {40 for them. It also would explain why 14,000 p40's were built in WWII and kept in production right to close to the end of the war. People, especially the brits like to bad mouth the Allison engine but mostly out of embarassment,as for its time it matched and exceeded the merlin in performance especially 20,000 ft and below. the only advantage the merlin 20 had was the second higher speed for the supercharger, realizing too the merlin was only slightly better above 20,000 ft. why the Merlin in the P40 F made NO performance gain over the merlin 20,000 ft and lower. Allison put out more power down low. and the Mustang Mk I & II was faster than the P40 !!!!! These are the performances the Brits like to keep quiet as it destroys all their lies, hype and Bullshit about the Allison engine whether used in the P40 or the early Mustangs !! ! Facts of history coming to light !!!!!If you're going to pick and choose your Spitfire, then you might was well pick and choose your P-40. I'd try the P-40F or P-40M if you're going to use an LF Spitfire. If I could pick ANY P-40, I'd take an XP-40Q-2/3! The LF Spit might not know what hit him.
Of course, you could also choose a Spit XIV. So, we might as well just let the Mk.V and the P-40E go and accept the existing report ... maybe. Perhaps there is another report on comparative combat between two different models of Spitfire / P-40. I haven't heard of THIS one until now ... so maybe there are more?
Remember........ the P40 F used the Packard built V1650-1 merlin with the 2 speed supercharger and it did NOT perform as good as the Allison version did !!!!
The spitfire Mk V and the P40 E matched up in time line, produced at about the same time and this proves why the Brits thought the P40 was the BEST AVAILABLE fighter of the time when they came to North American to see IF North American would build the {40 for them. It also would explain why 14,000 p40's were built in WWII and kept in production right to close to the end of the war. People, especially the brits like to bad mouth the Allison engine but mostly out of embarassment,as for its time it matched and exceeded the merlin in performance especially 20,000 ft and below. the only advantage the merlin 20 had was the second higher speed for the supercharger, realizing too the merlin was only slightly better above 20,000 ft. why the Merlin in the P40 F made NO performance gain over the merlin 20,000 ft and lower. Allison put out more power down low. and the Mustang Mk I & II was faster than the P40 !!!!! These are the performances the Brits like to keep quiet as it destroys all their lies, hype and Bullshit about the Allison engine whether used in the P40 or the early Mustangs !! ! Facts of history coming to light !!!!!
Always nice to read someone showing their real appreciation of the Brits wisdom in ordering the Mustang MkI in the first place.Remember........ the P40 F used the Packard built V1650-1 merlin with the 2 speed supercharger and it did NOT perform as good as the Allison version did !!!! The shitfire Mk V and the P40 E matched up in time line, produced at about the same time and this proves why the Brits thought the P40 was the BEST AVAILABLE fighter of the time when they came to North American to see IF North American would build the {40 for them. It also would explain why 14,000 p40's were built in WWII and kept in production right to close to the end of the war. People, especially the brits like to bad mouth the Allison engine but mostly out of embarassment,as for its time it matched and exceeded the merlin in performance especially 20,000 ft and below. the only advantage the merlin 20 had was the second higher speed for the supercharger, realizing too the merlin was only slightly better above 20,000 ft. why the Merlin in the P40 F made NO performance gain over the merlin 20,000 ft and lower. Allison put out more power down low. and the Mustang Mk I & II was faster than the P40 !!!!! These are the performances the Brits like to keep quiet as it destroys all their lies, hype and Bullshit about the Allison engine whether used in the P40 or the early Mustangs !! ! Facts of history coming to light !!!!!
You don't need to be so belligerent. The P-40 was god, but the Spitfire was a great fighter. That's just a fact.
Remember........ the P40 F used the Packard built V1650-1 merlin with the 2 speed supercharger and it did NOT perform as good as the Allison version did !!!! The shitfire Mk V and the P40 E matched up in time line, produced at about the same time and this proves why the Brits thought the P40 was the BEST AVAILABLE fighter of the time when they came to North American to see IF North American would build the {40 for them. It also would explain why 14,000 p40's were built in WWII and kept in production right to close to the end of the war. People, especially the brits like to bad mouth the Allison engine but mostly out of embarassment,as for its time it matched and exceeded the merlin in performance especially 20,000 ft and below. the only advantage the merlin 20 had was the second higher speed for the supercharger, realizing too the merlin was only slightly better above 20,000 ft. why the Merlin in the P40 F made NO performance gain over the merlin 20,000 ft and lower. Allison put out more power down low. and the Mustang Mk I & II was faster than the P40 !!!!! These are the performances the Brits like to keep quiet as it destroys all their lies, hype and Bullshit about the Allison engine whether used in the P40 or the early Mustangs !! ! Facts of history coming to light !!!!!
I think you mean "The P-40 was Zeus but the Spitfire was Jehovah."
The RAF would have lost the BoB if they'd had Hawk 81A's instead of Spitfires. On the other hand, if the RAF had a hundred or so operational Hawk 81A's together with the required pilots they could have proved to be a nasty shock to tired BF-109 pilots straggling in over France watching their Low Fuel Warning Lights instead of their tails.