Spitfire V Versus P-40E

[GregP]

There is a momentary toggle switch on the P-40 instrument panel. Once in constant-speed mode, if you push it upward, the rpm goes up by 200 and you release it and it returns to center. If you push it downward and release it, the rpm goes down by 200 rpm. On the day in question, the density altitude was probably above 6,500 feet and the P-40E was fast.

It was essentially a stock P-40E that belongs to John Paul and was being flown by his son at the time. His machine is about as "stock" as it gets, and flies regularly.

 

[MIflyer]

A key factor in the P-40's success in the Western Desert was numbers. They had sent Hurricanes in mere dribs and drabs to the Middle East but when the Hawk 81A Tomahawks arrived it was in squadron and wing strength. Those airplanes were not needed to defend the U.K. and they felt free to use them in numbers. The Germans in the theater were almost always heavily outnumbered after that. The Hurricane PR guys even went over to the new Tomahawk units and asked to coordinate their efforts to enable the P-40 fighter sweeps to give them some support.

When the Palm Sunday Massacure occurred they had four squadrons of USAAF Warhawks escorted by RAF Spitfires that attacked 90 Ju-52's escorted by BF-109's. They shot down 59 Ju-52's and 16 BF-109's while losing only 6 P-40's. The RAF escorting Spitfire losses were actually greater, I think. So there you have it. A overwhelming force of P-40's escorted by Spitfires did a great job - but the Warhawks had to be escorted by better air to air fighters for that to occur. I guess that is "learning how to use the airplane effectively."

 

[Schweik]

Yeah but there are a few flaws with that argument.

The "Palm Sunday Massacre" though not an unusual incident (there were at least half a dozen such wipeouts of German transports that took place by various types of fighters) it wasn't the typical P-40 mission in that Theater.

Many of the missions flown by those US P-40 units were beyond the range of the Spitfires.

Typical mission flown was with P-40's flying top cover for older P-40's or Hurricanes, or for B-25's, Maryland's or Baltimore's. It's a myth that Spitfires always or even usually flew top cover for Kittyhawks.

Many of these missions were flown on days when Spitfires were not even flying. I broke this down for Oct 1942 on this forum. I'll find it & link it.

There was never a time when there were more P40's in Theater than Hurricanes. There were plenty of Hurricanes. They just couldn't be used in the same way.

 

[Schweik]

Ok here is the post, it's all the combat data (via Mediterranian Air War) with claims and losses for both sides for October 1942, during the height of El Alemein. A couple of things are worth pointing out:

You'll notice that Spitfire units made claims on only 15 days during the month, whereas P-40 units of one type or another made claims on 25 days. Hurricane units made claims on 4 days. To me this is an indicator that A) P-40s were bearing the brunt of the fighting, and B) they were not being protected by Spitfires most of the time.

US P-40 units claimed 29 victories and lost 6 (3 shot down and 3 crash landed)
RAF P-40 units claimed 35.5 victories and lost 36 (about half were older model P-40s)
Spitfire units claimed 35 victories and lost 11 (10 shot down and 1 crash landed)
Total P-40 unit claims were 53.5, of which 32.5 were from late model P-40s (Kittyhawk II and II) and 11 were from early model (Kittyhawk I or Tomahawk).

Hurricanes IIc units claimed 12 (4 fighters and 8 bombers) and lost 19 (17 shot down and 2 crash landed)

The Germans themselves reported losing 11 fighters to P-40s, 2 shot down by Spitfires, and 1 shot down by a Hurricane. The rest did not indicate who got them.

The Axis lost 81 aircraft (62 shot down, 19 crash landed, of which 44/19 were fighters)
The Germans lost 41 x Bf 109s in total (34 shot down and 7 crash landed, of which 10 were G model, 28 were F model, and 3 were E model Jabos)
The Italians lost 18 MC 202s (10 shot down and 8 crash landed) plus 10 CR 42 fighter bombers (6 shot down and 4 crash landed).
The Germans also lost 15 bombers and 3 transports

The Anglo-Americans lost 90 aircraft (73 shot down, 17 crash landed, of which 6 bombers were lost - of the fighters 39 P-40s were shot down and 14 crash landed)

 

[Tkdog]

So, you're going to go out and shoot down some Nazi transports. You have Spitfires and P-40s. Why would you not use them both? It's a very high priority target and the fighters are there. At which point using them in a way that plays to to their strengths is fairly obvious.

Too much time is spent on this plane is better than that plane. They were happy to have both of them and would have taken more of each. They figured out tactics for using them and they learned as they went. There really wasn't a choice.

 

[Schweik]

I agree with you generally, I do think however it's worth delving into the actual record sometimes to correct long standing myths and find out what actually happened. Ultimately, which aircraft is better is often meaningless, and is only decisive at the extremes. All military aircraft had their strengths and weaknesses. Looking at the performance of the pilots of Finland shows that tactics and training, and understanding the strengths and limitations of your own aircraft compared to those of your opponent can all matter more than the actual aircraft being used - at least to a point.

Part of where the human element came into play is where designers and engineers, military leaders, pilots and crew chiefs figured out how to push the limits to best exploit the strengths of the aircraft avialable to them, and the weaknesses of their opponents.

The region and conditions where combat takes place also matter a lot. Adapting to those conditions was another huge challenge. An aircraft which could bring victory in one Theater often struggled in another and vice versa.

And of course for those of us fascinated by WW 2 aircraft, it can be fun to delve into all of these complexities.

 

[Schweik]

There is a momentary toggle switch on the P-40 instrument panel. Once in constant-speed mode, if you push it upward, the rpm goes up by 200 and you release it and it returns to center. If you push it downward and release it, the rpm goes down by 200 rpm. On the day in question, the density altitude was probably above 6,500 feet and the P-40E was fast.

It was essentially a stock P-40E that belongs to John Paul and was being flown by his son at the time. His machine is about as "stock" as it gets, and flies regularly.

You might find this account interesting: Bf-109 vs P-40

 

[Schweik]

A key factor in the P-40's success in the Western Desert was numbers. They had sent Hurricanes in mere dribs and drabs to the Middle East but when the Hawk 81A Tomahawks arrived it was in squadron and wing strength. Those airplanes were not needed to defend the U.K. and they felt free to use them in numbers. The Germans in the theater were almost always heavily outnumbered after that. The Hurricane PR guys even went over to the new Tomahawk units and asked to coordinate their efforts to enable the P-40 fighter sweeps to give them some support.

When the Palm Sunday Massacure occurred they had four squadrons of USAAF Warhawks escorted by RAF Spitfires that attacked 90 Ju-52's escorted by BF-109's. They shot down 59 Ju-52's and 16 BF-109's while losing only 6 P-40's. The RAF escorting Spitfire losses were actually greater, I think. So there you have it. A overwhelming force of P-40's escorted by Spitfires did a great job - but the Warhawks had to be escorted by better air to air fighters for that to occur. I guess that is "learning how to use the airplane effectively."

So Operation Flax, of which the Palm Sunday massacre was part, took place in April 1943.


If you look at March 1943 you'll find (in Mediterranean Air War) that US P-40 fighter units engaged with and defeated German Bf 109 equipped units and Italian MC 202 and MC 205 equipped squadrons several times and got the better of them. On several specific occasions during March 1943 there were no other Allied aircraft involved. In some other cases there were Spitfires around but they claimed less aircraft shot down than the total number of Axis aircraft lost.
23 March 1943 (USAAF 79 FG vs. JG 77 & JG 51) 2 Bf 109s lost to P-40's / 0 P40s lost
24 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 2 Bf 109s lost (+4 lost for 'unknown reasons')/ 1 P-40 lost
29 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (4 destroyed +2 crash-landed) and 3 He 111's and 1 Ju 88 / 2 P-40's lost (1 to AA)
31 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (3 destroyed +3 crash-landed) and Ju 87 lost to P-40 / 1 P-40 lost

There was another similar spate of action in July 1943 in which US units were fighting Axis fighters beyond the range of the Spits on several days:

July 8 1943 (US 324th FG vs. JG 77 and JG 53 and Italian 150 Gr CT) 5 x German Bf 109G-6 lost and 1 x Italian Bf 109G lost / 3 P-40s lost
July 22 1943 (US 325th FG vs. Italian 22 and 51 Stormo) 4 x MC 205 shot down, (+ 2 x 205 'shot up by P-40s') 3 x MC 202 & 1 X D.520 shot down , Ca 309 shot down / 2 x P40 lost
July 26 1943 (US 325th FG vs. JG 53 and Italian 51 Stormo) 2 x Bf 109G shot down, 1 x MC 205 (+1 205 'shot up by fighters') / 0 P-40s lost
July 30 1943 (US 325th FG vs. JG 77) 6 x Bf 109G Shot down***** / 1 P-40 shot down

 

[Vincenzo]

That the P-40 was successfull versus the 109 in MTO is a myth

 

[PAT303]

A key factor in the P-40's success in the Western Desert was numbers.

I feel the problem the Bf109 had against the P 40 was the same problem the MkV had against the FW 190, they were medium/high level fighters that were used at the later two's low altitude.

 

[MIflyer]

If the 56th had been flying Spit V and IX that day they would have scored even higher kills - assuming the Spits had enough fuel to hang around. They needed the Spits as top cover because the P-40 could not hack it. Some 109's made it down to try to get the P-40's off the JU-52's, no doubt tried to turn with a P-40, and got clobbered. The Spits scored far fewer kills, and none of the Ju-52's because they were totally engaged with keeping the 109's busy.

If that top cover had been P-40's instead of Spits the American losses would have been far greater and the kills far fewer, even though they had 40 to 60 fighters.

 

[fubar57]

This is from a 2011 book, "P-40 Warhawk vs Bf 109 MTO 1942 - 44" by Carl Molesworth...

 

[Schweik]

This is from a 2011 book, "P-40 Warhawk vs Bf 109 MTO 1942 - 44" by Carl Molesworth...

View attachment 589034

View attachment 589035​

I have the same book, it's a good one. But comparing those two lists is a little misleading for a couple of reasons -

The Allied Aces listed there only include the American pilots.
The Americans were only active in relatively small numbers and some only for a few months, compared to as much as 3 years for the Commonwealth pilots.
Those German Aces scored most of their victories against British or Commonwealth pilots flying older model planes
Many of their victories (for example of Marseilles) made claims for P-40s when they actually got Hurricanes.


Here is a partial list of Commonwealth Aces who flew the P-40 (there are 23 more):

No / Name / Total / P-40 / Nation
1 Neville Duke 27 UK (8-10 in KIttyhawk and Tomahawk)
2 Clive Caldwell 26 20 Aus
3 Billy Drake 24.5 13 UK
4 James Francis "Stocky" Edwards 19 12 Can
5 R J C Whittle 11 11 Aus
6 Keith Truscott 17 Aus
7 John Lloyd Waddy 15 11 Aus (first 12 kills in P-40, more in Spitfires)
8 Andrew "Nicky" Barr 12.5 Aus
9 Peter Turnbill 12 Aus (5 kills on P-40 in Med, 3 kills in Pacific)
10 Geoff Fiskin 11 NZ
11 Bobby Gibbes 10.5 Aus
12 N Bowker 10 9 UK
13 D W Golding 8 8 SA
14 E C Saville 8 8 SA
15 J E Frost 14 7 SA
16 M S Hards 7 7 UK
17 A C Bosman 8 6 SA
18 A C Cameron 6 6 Aus
19 O V Hanbury 10 6 UK
20 R M Leu 6 6 UK
21 Wilfred Arthur 10 Aus (4 kills in one sortie in Med, also fought in
Pacific)

 

[Schweik]

If the 56th had been flying Spit V and IX that day they would have scored even higher kills - assuming the Spits had enough fuel to hang around. They needed the Spits as top cover because the P-40 could not hack it. Some 109's made it down to try to get the P-40's off the JU-52's, no doubt tried to turn with a P-40, and got clobbered. The Spits scored far fewer kills, and none of the Ju-52's because they were totally engaged with keeping the 109's busy.

If that top cover had been P-40's instead of Spits the American losses would have been far greater and the kills far fewer, even though they had 40 to 60 fighters.

I don't know what you base that on, since I've pointed out something like 10 days of battle where the P-40s were flying top cover, as they usually were, no Spitfires were in the battle area, and yet they shot down far more German planes than they lost.

For some people it's an article of faith.

 

[Schweik]

That the P-40 was successfull versus the 109 in MTO is a myth

Again, that sounds more like the voice of faith than based on any actual data.

 

[Schweik]

Circling back to the Spitfire for a moment, I would put it like this.

The original very broad Spitfire legend is that it dominated the Bf 109 and won the Battle of Britain. When we drill down a little deeper into the data we find that the early Spit (I and II) was pretty evenly matched with the 109E, but that the 109 suffered a bit more from the Tactical situation of having to fly escort (and sometimes ill conceived close escort) and often near the limits of their operational range, as well as going against an integrated air defense with radar. We also know that Hurricanes shot down most of the German bombers.

Then the Spit V and Bf 109F arrived, with the Fw 190 not long after, and once again the conventional wisdom was that the Spit V was inferior.

The Franz was a major improvement over the Emil. It was far better streamlined, had a significantly more powerful engine, had more ammunition and (arguably) more accurate guns. From what I understand they got the leading edge slats working properly in the F model.

The Spit V was also a big leap forward but it was initially plagued with a number of minor flaws and issues. The guns were prone to jamming and the cannons only had 60 rounds each, and they could sometimes freeze at high altitude. The carb would still flood with a negative G push-over. The Merlin 45 engine though more powerful than the Merlin II or III on the Spit Mk I, was not up to it's full potential. And in the Med they had a lot of problems with the Tropical filters.

When the British started trying to fly provocation raids over the Channel, they were reversing roles and were now the ones facing an integrated air defense. This was a big part of the problem. But initially it's clear the early Spit V was inferior to the 190 and a bit so compared to the 109F-2

But the Bf 109F and the Spit were both around for a long time. The Franz came out in 1941 but it was still being used at least in the Med all through 1942 and even in 1943. The Spit V lasted even longer, still equipping some units in 1944.

The F went basically from the F-2 to the F-4, improving from a 15mm cannon to a much more deadly 20mm. They improved the engine power by about 100-150 hp.

But the Spit V improved even more. They got the 130 octane fuel and increased the allowed boost, and put in engines with more horsepower - it went from ~ 1,200 hp to routinely up to 1,585 at high boost. Rate of climb and acceleration improved. Dive was faster because there was no carb cutout with the Bendix carb. They fixed most of the problems with the air filter. They replaced the drum based cannon with belt fed cannon that gave twice as much ammunition and reduced the tendency to jam. They improved heating systems to keep the guns from freezing. They made specialized LF and HF versions. And they improved their tactics - it took a while to start using the finger four / pairs system in the MTO for whatever reason, even though it was already done in the BoB, but once they were doing that and a lot of other things in the Med, it made a difference. They got better and more reliable radios.

A Spitfire LF Mk Vc with a Merlin 50 or 50M, (let alone a 55M though those came later) was a pretty dangerous aircraft and definitely could hold it's own anything the Axis had in the MTO Theater. The IX was still better, but the late model Vc was clearly on par with an MC 202 or the 109F-4 and didn't seem too bothered going up against a 109G-2 or G-4 either.

I would argue that the P-40 history in the Med was kind of similar. The Tomahawk arrived and brought success to the DAF. It was dominant over the G.50, MC 200 and Bf 110, and could hold it's own with the 109E. It's arrival hurried the replacement of the 109E with the F. The F was superior to the early P-40s (both Tomahawk and Kittyhawk) and took a heavy toll from winter of 41/42 through the first few months of 42. The early Kittyhawk had a 1,050 hp engine and many of the same problems as the Spit - wing guns jamming, engine running below full potential, bad tactics and so on.

But the British, Australians, South Africans and Americans flying the P-40 got the new high octane gas and started increasing the boost. They adopted pairs and formation tactics. Curtiss made improvements to the guns which reduced jamming, and lengthened the fuselage to improve high speed stability. The newer V-1710-73 Allison Engines could go up to 1550+ HP down low, and the V-1650 Packard-Merlin engined variants were good for 1,350-1,400 hp and raised the performance ceiling by 8,000 ft. That is when the tide started to change with those units as well.

 

[buffnut453]

I have the same book, it's a good one. But comparing those two lists is a little misleading for a couple of reasons -

The Allied Aces listed there only include the American pilots.
The Americans were only active in relatively small numbers and some only for a few months, compared to as much as 3 years for the Commonwealth pilots.
Those German Aces scored most of their victories against British or Commonwealth pilots flying older model planes
Many of their victories (for example of Marseilles) made claims for P-40s when they actually got Hurricanes.


Here is a partial list of Commonwealth Aces who flew the P-40 (there are 23 more):

No / Name / Total / P-40 / Nation
1 Neville Duke 27 UK (8-10 in KIttyhawk and Tomahawk)
2 Clive Caldwell 26 20 Aus
3 Billy Drake 24.5 13 UK
4 James Francis "Stocky" Edwards 19 12 Can
5 R J C Whittle 11 11 Aus
6 Keith Truscott 17 Aus
7 John Lloyd Waddy 15 11 Aus (first 12 kills in P-40, more in Spitfires)
8 Andrew "Nicky" Barr 12.5 Aus
9 Peter Turnbill 12 Aus (5 kills on P-40 in Med, 3 kills in Pacific)
10 Geoff Fiskin 11 NZ
11 Bobby Gibbes 10.5 Aus
12 N Bowker 10 9 UK
13 D W Golding 8 8 SA
14 E C Saville 8 8 SA
15 J E Frost 14 7 SA
16 M S Hards 7 7 UK
17 A C Bosman 8 6 SA
18 A C Cameron 6 6 Aus
19 O V Hanbury 10 6 UK
20 R M Leu 6 6 UK
21 Wilfred Arthur 10 Aus (4 kills in one sortie in Med, also fought in
Pacific)

Minor nitpick but Fisken only had 5 kills while flying P-40s.

 

[Schweik]

Minor nitpick but Fisken only had 5 kills while flying P-40s.

Thanks I'll adjust my notes on that. I think he got several with the Buffalo too.

 

[Schweik]

Does anyone know when the Spitfire got constant speed props?

 

[Greyman]

Roughly June / July 1940.