Spitfire V Versus P-40E
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MkV LF's running 50 series Merlins were good for 350mph below 10,000ft.
Kevin J
Banned
The P-40K should have been good for 344 mph at sea level and 364 mph from 5000 to 15000 feet, same as the A-36 which had dive brakes and bomb racks. You'd want to use the LF VB for close escort and dive bombing, the P-40M for medium level cover alongside the F VC.
- Thread starter
- #44
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
Th e P-40 was the King of Mediocrity. It was fast enough at lower altitudes to be competitive but usually not fast enough for it to be a decisive advantage. It was very maneuverable but not as good as the Spitfire, Zero, or Oscar. It had longer range than the Spitfire, Hurricane, BF-109, FW-190, but not enough to be a long range bomber escort. It was rugged and made a better ground attack airplane than Spitfire, Hurricane, BF-109, Zero, Oscar, and probably about as good as a Typhoon, but not nearly as good as a P-47D.
It's been said that when it came to air to air fighting the Merlin Mustang never met an adversary it could not outperform in at least one critical area; the reverse was true of the P-40.
It's been said that when it came to air to air fighting the Merlin Mustang never met an adversary it could not outperform in at least one critical area; the reverse was true of the P-40.
Kevin J
Banned
2000 aerial victories for the USAAF, 800 for the Commonwealth, 250+ for the AVG, must be at least 500 for the USSR as they thought it better than the Hurricane so maybe 800 not 500. That takes its total score past the Lightning.
Milflyer is right in one sense: the p-40 was not world's greatest in any particular category. And on paper it looked kind of mediocre. But Kevin j is right the operational history shows that the P-40 was succeeding in every theater of the war where they used it far better than expected. That is why it remained in combat for so long even though it was supposedly so bad.
Part of the reason the strength of the Allison engine, the strength of the airframe and the maneuverability inherent in the design by Don Berlin. And the ingenuity of the pilots whose refusal to accept their fate, notably early on the Australian pilots in the Western Desert which made them some of the first to figure out how to exploit the strengths and understand the limitations of the p-40 (as well as much more famously, the AVG).
Once the advantages and disadvantages of the plane were better understood, in the Pacific, in Russia, in the western desert, and in China / Burma the p-40 was a known quantity which experienced pilots were able to exploit to do what fighters are supposed to do: shoot down enemy aircraft and bring their pilot home.
Its main advantages were very high dive speed (which could go far over the flight manual limit) good turn rate, excellent roll rate, heavy construction and armor, and good firepower. The engine turned out to be more powerful than it was rated for and the pilot exploited that.The main reason that it was successful was that p-40 pilots knew their combination of maneuverability and dive speed (or low altitude speed) made it able to disengage when the pilot really wanted to most of the time. This was true fighting against the Germans and Italians as it was against the Japanese. And that is the really key thing for a fighter. (The ability to disengage was also the main advantage of the P 51).
The really major disadvantage or Strategic flaw was it's poor high altitude performance as Acheron mentioned. That was the strategic limitation, that is why it could not escort heavy bombers and why it gave up the tactical advantage especially to the BF 109, and that is why the air force generals despised it, even though a lot of the pilots who flew it loved it
Part of the reason the strength of the Allison engine, the strength of the airframe and the maneuverability inherent in the design by Don Berlin. And the ingenuity of the pilots whose refusal to accept their fate, notably early on the Australian pilots in the Western Desert which made them some of the first to figure out how to exploit the strengths and understand the limitations of the p-40 (as well as much more famously, the AVG).
Once the advantages and disadvantages of the plane were better understood, in the Pacific, in Russia, in the western desert, and in China / Burma the p-40 was a known quantity which experienced pilots were able to exploit to do what fighters are supposed to do: shoot down enemy aircraft and bring their pilot home.
Its main advantages were very high dive speed (which could go far over the flight manual limit) good turn rate, excellent roll rate, heavy construction and armor, and good firepower. The engine turned out to be more powerful than it was rated for and the pilot exploited that.The main reason that it was successful was that p-40 pilots knew their combination of maneuverability and dive speed (or low altitude speed) made it able to disengage when the pilot really wanted to most of the time. This was true fighting against the Germans and Italians as it was against the Japanese. And that is the really key thing for a fighter. (The ability to disengage was also the main advantage of the P 51).
The really major disadvantage or Strategic flaw was it's poor high altitude performance as Acheron mentioned. That was the strategic limitation, that is why it could not escort heavy bombers and why it gave up the tactical advantage especially to the BF 109, and that is why the air force generals despised it, even though a lot of the pilots who flew it loved it
Last edited:
The high maneuverability & the ability to pour on the coal when you needed to such as by overboosting also made it easier to get those shots against a fleeing or maneuvering Target. On the other hand like a lot of fighters with wing mounted guns p-40s and trouble with jamming machine guns in the early years. That was another thing that was mostly fixed with the p40 k or f and later.
I suspect the p 40K could do better than 360 miles an hour down low if it was over boosting as high as they reported they were but nobody ever clocked it at 70 in of Mercury. Both p40 k & f /l models were reportedly able to outrun BF 109 at low altitude on several documented occasions
I suspect the p 40K could do better than 360 miles an hour down low if it was over boosting as high as they reported they were but nobody ever clocked it at 70 in of Mercury. Both p40 k & f /l models were reportedly able to outrun BF 109 at low altitude on several documented occasions
If the P-40 was truely mediocre all around, then I guess it boiled down to forcing the enemy into a way of combat where is plane was sub-par and avoid types of engagements where his was above the norm? Though that was true of pretty much every aircraft I would say, though some advantages (like speed) where easier to force onto te opponent than others (like maneuverability).
Yes, that is true. Every fighter had it's limitations and advantages and the key to using them was figuring out what the parameters were precisely, both for your aircraft and that of your enemy. That is why the Zero became easier to face after they tested it.
With the P-40 it's just that the low to medium altitude limitation was a major problem. In particular against the Germans, the enemy would usually gain the altitude advantage and therefore the option of first attack. That is another way fighter aircraft were successful - being able to choose when and where to attack. As we know, some large percentage of attacks took place without the target even realizing they were about to get hit.
For the (RAF, initially) P-40 units in the MTO what this meant was they had to develop tactics to deal with the potential of attack from above. The Germans were free to roam around in relatively small groups - a flight of four could patrol safe from attack at 25,000 ft. And for 1941 and the first few months of 1942 they were often able to pick off Allied fighters by swooping down on them unawares and picking them off, then climbing back up out of reach. It wasn't decisive, it was a low risk means of attrition warfare, and it didn't work in escort situations - if they wanted to shoot down bombers they had to force the issue which gave the P-40s and Hurricanes a better chance to get them. But they were able to keep picking away.
To be fair to the P-40, for whatever reasons (possibly Tropical filters) Hurricanes and the early (Mk V) Spitfires also seemed to be vulnerable to this problem and were routinely attacked from above, though the Spit V was the least vulnerable of the three.
To counter this the RAF developed tactics where they would always fly in a squadron formation (no tooling around in flights of four), watch the skies very carefully and when attacked, notify the leader with a couple of clicks of the mic button, then wait for the squadron leader to call "Break Right!" or "Break Left" at just the right instant when the enemy plane was diving down, and then pour on the coal and use their sharp turn rate to wheel into the attack as a squadron. As in all 12-16 aircraft with their guns blazing. This would generally force the German planes to break off. If the Germans kept trying to make these diving attacks, which they sometimes did, they would eventually drop down to an E state where the Allies could meet them on an equal basis, and then it was 'game on'. But it was a tense game, and the Allied pilots had to be very patient. Any deviation from this plan meant death.
The Allies also switched tactics so as to much more aggressively target Axis air bases. This often gave them a Tactical advantage because if the German fighters didn't enter into a sustained engagement, Allied fighter bombers or light bombers would smash up many of the Axis aircraft on the ground. If they did enter into the sustained engagement, especially climbing up from below, they no longer had an advantage and usually took losses.
In the Pacific and China it could be a similar situation as the Zero and Ki-43 also had better altitude performance, but not by such a margin and they were slower than the P-40. They also had to fly at the altitude of the bombers and for tactical success the bombers often had to come in relatively low, so fighting often took place within the performance envelope of the P-40, and the P-40 in turn could usually (though not always) still escape an engagement with a high speed dive.
When the Japanese did relatively high altitude (22-25,000 ft) level bombing then the escorting Zeros had an advantage, and if the Allies came in with a bomb run at relatively low altitude the Japanese CAP often got the first attack, which is never good. The Japanese didn't seem to be quite as well organized as the Germans. RAF and RAAF pilots returning from the Western Desert noted how the pilots in the Pacific would chatter on the radio on the way to a target, whereas in Egypt they had to keep strict radio silence until engaged.
Ultimately the P-40 did very well in China, including long after the AVG was a memory, and did well in the Pacific, where their ultimate limitation proved to be range.
Also, the other big problem with the altitude limitation was that P-40s couldn't escort the big four-engined bombers unless the latter flew at low altitude, which limited their range and made them more vulnerable so it was usually never done in Europe. It was done in the Middle East sometimes and in the Pacific where there was less flak etc.
With the P-40 it's just that the low to medium altitude limitation was a major problem. In particular against the Germans, the enemy would usually gain the altitude advantage and therefore the option of first attack. That is another way fighter aircraft were successful - being able to choose when and where to attack. As we know, some large percentage of attacks took place without the target even realizing they were about to get hit.
For the (RAF, initially) P-40 units in the MTO what this meant was they had to develop tactics to deal with the potential of attack from above. The Germans were free to roam around in relatively small groups - a flight of four could patrol safe from attack at 25,000 ft. And for 1941 and the first few months of 1942 they were often able to pick off Allied fighters by swooping down on them unawares and picking them off, then climbing back up out of reach. It wasn't decisive, it was a low risk means of attrition warfare, and it didn't work in escort situations - if they wanted to shoot down bombers they had to force the issue which gave the P-40s and Hurricanes a better chance to get them. But they were able to keep picking away.
To be fair to the P-40, for whatever reasons (possibly Tropical filters) Hurricanes and the early (Mk V) Spitfires also seemed to be vulnerable to this problem and were routinely attacked from above, though the Spit V was the least vulnerable of the three.
To counter this the RAF developed tactics where they would always fly in a squadron formation (no tooling around in flights of four), watch the skies very carefully and when attacked, notify the leader with a couple of clicks of the mic button, then wait for the squadron leader to call "Break Right!" or "Break Left" at just the right instant when the enemy plane was diving down, and then pour on the coal and use their sharp turn rate to wheel into the attack as a squadron. As in all 12-16 aircraft with their guns blazing. This would generally force the German planes to break off. If the Germans kept trying to make these diving attacks, which they sometimes did, they would eventually drop down to an E state where the Allies could meet them on an equal basis, and then it was 'game on'. But it was a tense game, and the Allied pilots had to be very patient. Any deviation from this plan meant death.
The Allies also switched tactics so as to much more aggressively target Axis air bases. This often gave them a Tactical advantage because if the German fighters didn't enter into a sustained engagement, Allied fighter bombers or light bombers would smash up many of the Axis aircraft on the ground. If they did enter into the sustained engagement, especially climbing up from below, they no longer had an advantage and usually took losses.
In the Pacific and China it could be a similar situation as the Zero and Ki-43 also had better altitude performance, but not by such a margin and they were slower than the P-40. They also had to fly at the altitude of the bombers and for tactical success the bombers often had to come in relatively low, so fighting often took place within the performance envelope of the P-40, and the P-40 in turn could usually (though not always) still escape an engagement with a high speed dive.
When the Japanese did relatively high altitude (22-25,000 ft) level bombing then the escorting Zeros had an advantage, and if the Allies came in with a bomb run at relatively low altitude the Japanese CAP often got the first attack, which is never good. The Japanese didn't seem to be quite as well organized as the Germans. RAF and RAAF pilots returning from the Western Desert noted how the pilots in the Pacific would chatter on the radio on the way to a target, whereas in Egypt they had to keep strict radio silence until engaged.
Ultimately the P-40 did very well in China, including long after the AVG was a memory, and did well in the Pacific, where their ultimate limitation proved to be range.
Also, the other big problem with the altitude limitation was that P-40s couldn't escort the big four-engined bombers unless the latter flew at low altitude, which limited their range and made them more vulnerable so it was usually never done in Europe. It was done in the Middle East sometimes and in the Pacific where there was less flak etc.
Last edited:
Also, in general, I think it's inaccurate to say that the P-40 was mediocre all around - it certainly had mediocre climb and altitude performance, and wasn't a gold medalist in all the key categories, but it was the best the Allies had in a few key areas (like dive) and kind of second or third best (silver or bronze medalist) in several categories. It was the fastest fighter in the Pacific Theater for a long time, and probably the most maneuverable Allied fighter in that region for the first year of the war. It was arguably the second most maneuverable monoplane fighter in the MTO and probably Russia too, due to it's combination of good roll and sharp turn rate. It was the best armed Allied fighter in Russia and the Pacific as well for a long time, and the fastest Allied fighter in the Western Desert at the altitudes they were usually fighting - at least until the P-38 arrived (and the early P-38s had all kinds of problems of their own).
So maybe another way to look at it is grade point average. Other aircraft may have had an A two important categories (climb and altitude), a B in another (speed) and a few C's and D's (like range or high speed control), whereas the P-40 has one A, a lot of Bs with one D (effective altitude). In the end the grade point average was pretty high, higher than most.
@Schwik thank you, that was very illuminating. A question, I read that the Red Army didn't care much for the MiG-3, because while it had better high-altitude peformance than the Yaks and Las, this was simply rarely needed on the Eastern Front. Is this true and if so, what made the difference on the Eastern Front to other theaters of war?
It's true and in part it is because the MiG-3 had a very large and heavy engine, which didn't generate much power down low. So it wasn't so much that it was better at high altitude, it was also not very good at low altitude. Specifically it was way too slow down below 5,000 ft. It couldn't outrun or escape German fighters and sometimes couldn't catch German bombers either. The MiG-3 was also kind of twitchy even by the standard of Soviet aircraft at the time, and didn't turn too well, so without a speed advantage it was basically in trouble.
Most of the fighting on the Russian Front was at low altitude mainly because the combat was primarily Tactical, meaning in direct support of the ground fighting. The main part of the Soviet Air Force, the VVS, was the Frontal Aviation force, meaning the planes which fought right over the Front. The Germans did some significant Strategic and Operational raids against the Russians particularly early in the war but they didn't have the kind of heavy high altitude bombers the US had and they too concentrated their efforts on the front line The most important German aircraft for the war-effort was the Stuka, which was a low altitude plane that dived down lower still to drop bombs (as a dive bomber). The longer ranged and higher flying Ju 88 was also used a lot in the dive bombing role, especially early in the war.
The most important Soviet aircraft conversely was the Il-2 attack plane, which was even more of a low altitude bird which came in strafing, shooting rockets and dropping bombs and bomblets. That is the weapon they used against German tanks and armored vehicles.
So in both cases, the fighters go where the bombers go. The other reason for the lower altitude combat was the weather. Something like 8 or 9 months out of the year depending which part of the gigantic front line you are talking about, there was often a fairly low cloud ceiling which prevented high flying planes from seeing the battlefield or lower flying aircraft.
The German fighters, particularly the Bf 109, were pretty good at both high and low altitude, though they were probably at their best up pretty high (~20' feet).
The Soviet fighters like the LaGG-3 and later La 5, the Yak -1, Yak -7, Yak -9 and later the Yak 3 were all basically low altitude fighters, best below 15,000 ft.
This was also true of the P-40s, P-39s and Hurricanes they got in pretty large numbers from the Anglo-Americans.
Most of the fighting on the Russian Front was at low altitude mainly because the combat was primarily Tactical, meaning in direct support of the ground fighting. The main part of the Soviet Air Force, the VVS, was the Frontal Aviation force, meaning the planes which fought right over the Front. The Germans did some significant Strategic and Operational raids against the Russians particularly early in the war but they didn't have the kind of heavy high altitude bombers the US had and they too concentrated their efforts on the front line The most important German aircraft for the war-effort was the Stuka, which was a low altitude plane that dived down lower still to drop bombs (as a dive bomber). The longer ranged and higher flying Ju 88 was also used a lot in the dive bombing role, especially early in the war.
The most important Soviet aircraft conversely was the Il-2 attack plane, which was even more of a low altitude bird which came in strafing, shooting rockets and dropping bombs and bomblets. That is the weapon they used against German tanks and armored vehicles.
So in both cases, the fighters go where the bombers go. The other reason for the lower altitude combat was the weather. Something like 8 or 9 months out of the year depending which part of the gigantic front line you are talking about, there was often a fairly low cloud ceiling which prevented high flying planes from seeing the battlefield or lower flying aircraft.
The German fighters, particularly the Bf 109, were pretty good at both high and low altitude, though they were probably at their best up pretty high (~20' feet).
The Soviet fighters like the LaGG-3 and later La 5, the Yak -1, Yak -7, Yak -9 and later the Yak 3 were all basically low altitude fighters, best below 15,000 ft.
This was also true of the P-40s, P-39s and Hurricanes they got in pretty large numbers from the Anglo-Americans.
Should have been or was?.
The P40 and Spit MkV were equal in the sense of they were good enough to hold the line but not good enough to turn the tide, it took better aircraft to gain a decisive win in regards to gaining control of the air.
I don't think aircraft quality alone can do that. It's a combination of quality, numbers, tactics & logistics. The Me 262 was better than every Allied fighter in most respects, but it couldn't win the war.
For all their flaws, the Spit V, P-38 and P-40 F/L, along with a host of bombers & fighter bombers, had already turned the tide in the Med by the time the better fighters like the Spot IX and the P-47 arrived.
Because needless to say, as great as they were, the Bf 109, MC 202, and Fw 190 had flaws too
For all their flaws, the Spit V, P-38 and P-40 F/L, along with a host of bombers & fighter bombers, had already turned the tide in the Med by the time the better fighters like the Spot IX and the P-47 arrived.
Because needless to say, as great as they were, the Bf 109, MC 202, and Fw 190 had flaws too
terrible race us British, I'm almost ashamed
Just Schmidt
Senior Airman
Evidently the Allison was the only ww2 vintage engine that could sustain multiple exclamation marks throughout a whole post. Must be due to its superior turbo-supermarker...
Kevin J
Banned
I must agree about the Shitfire V bit though. Too little, too late.terrible race us British, I'm almost ashamed
For what ?
