The aircraft that outlived their use-by date

[Procrastintor]

I'll have to find the source again, give me a bit.

 

[Procrastintor]

"USAAF and Chinese P-40 pilots performed well in this theater, scoring high kill ratios against Japanese types such as the Ki-43, Nakajima Ki-44 "Tojo" and the Zero. The P-40 remained in use in the China Burma India Theater (CBI) until 1944, and was reportedly preferred over the P-51 Mustang by some US pilots flying in China."
I found that on Wikipedia, looking for the article I read originally still and specific fighter groups.

 

[Procrastintor]

Found it, it was an E-Book I read, called American Warplanes of WWII,By Colonel John D. Curren
Still trying to figure out what groups he was referring to.

 

[nuuumannn]

Which suggests the aircraft was still very useful as an inexpensive short range transport

Indeed, and that's why the Ju 52 was widely used postwar - the civilian market was flooded by ex-military transports that were cheap and available for establishing airline routes; this was far more cost effective than buying new, more expensive designs. Ju 52s were used by British European Airways and people living in the Channel Islands protested their use because they were a German aeroplane. Many had prior Luftwaffe service under their belts.

 

[GregP]

The P-40 has some very good traits for a fighter. It rolls well, is decently maneuverable, and initially had some fuselage armament ... should have kept it. If it had a turbo, it might have been one of the good ones.

In the real world, it didn't get the turbo but was a good soldier nonetheless at what it was asked to do.

 

[CobberKane]

I think we should be careful about observations about the quality of fighters qualified by 'if' and 'when'. For example: the P-40 was a great fighter 'when' the 109 was foolish enough try and out turn it below 15000 feet. The problem is, of course that statements like these necessarily imply that it was at a tactical disadvantage against those fighters, as they almost always had the initiative as to when and how to engage, and the pilots of the 109 quickly learned not to be foolish. In the MTO, 109s routinely used their superior climb and altitude advantage to engage the P-49 frm above, where it couldn't compete. Having superiority in a defensive capacity like turn or (to a lesser extent) roll is useful in defence but not so much in attack. For attack you are much better off with climb and speed. The P-40 rarely enjoyed these advantages against its opposition, and thus rarely enjoyed the advantage in kill loss ratios.

 

[wuzak]

In the real world, it didn't get the turbo but was a good soldier nonetheless at what it was asked to do.

In the real world it was never getting the turbo....

 

[mhuxt]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned the Beaufighter yet, however so far as I know it began service just before the end of the daylight Battle of Britain, and was still in service in 1945, from Norway through Burma to the Far East.

Pretty good going, really.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Folks, think about something here - at the start of this thread we were quick to point to the P-40 for a working example. I think one has to look at the conflict before we can really make a determination on this. When a weapon system is no longer effective (and that includes the logistics in supporting it) IMO it has outlived its effectiveness. I could see aircraft like the P-40 or Hurricane in a ground support role till the end of the war where there is little or no aerial opposition. Both aircraft made good ground pounders but were certainly out of their heyday by wars' end especially if confronted by more modern fighters.

WW2 aircraft were used into the 1960s in the Third World. Indo China, Vietnam, El Salvador, Nigeria, and Malaysia to name a few. Did those aircraft that were used in these "brush fire" wars ineffective just because they weren't state of the art? I guess we should define this as "during a major conflict."

Donald Rumsfeld made a comment to the effect "when you go to war, you go with what you got." I may not say that's not the smartest quote in the history of warfare, but sometimes you have no choice, and if you go to war with seemingly obsolete equipment and meet your military objectives, then I guess that equipment is "effective." Case in point...

http://www.history.navy.mil/a-korea/caug52-24.pdf

 

[drgondog]

Um, a 6 year production run in the middle of World War 2, which was a infamous for cutting productions short left and right on all sides, is in no way an embarrassment. And by the way, they WERE in fact fighting in 1945, some groups preferred it to the P-51s and such.

What Fighter pilot would prefer a P-40 to a P-51? Sources, but please only for those that flew both and preferred the P-40.

 

[drgondog]

I'm sorry, but just because they didn't leave the base specifically FOR dogfighting doesn't mean they were unable to do it well. They were just as good as many planes in a dogfight, the only reasons they didn't go on long range escort missions was their engines didn't do well at 20,000 feet.

In addition to being slower and have less rate of climb, less acceleration.. usually a lack of two or more of these will be fatal against a 109 or Fw 190. In the PTO it had its hands full against the A6M...

The P-40K/N was a Trainer in Advanced from late 1943 until more P-51s were available in 1945. The units that got P-40s in 1944 were RAAF, SAAF in MTO and PTO because all the scarce front line fighters (P-51, Tempest, Typhoon) went to ETO/MTO with only a few P-51A in PTO until late 1944. Ditto P-47 and P-38.

It served a CAS role with modest ability to defend in 1944 and 1945 and served in Commonwealth units because it had more range than the Spit IX and more combination payload/fuel than most of its RAF/VVS counterparts.

 

[drgondog]

"USAAF and Chinese P-40 pilots performed well in this theater, scoring high kill ratios against Japanese types such as the Ki-43, Nakajima Ki-44 "Tojo" and the Zero. The P-40 remained in use in the China Burma India Theater (CBI) until 1944, and was reportedly preferred over the P-51 Mustang by some US pilots flying in China."
I found that on Wikipedia, looking for the article I read originally still and specific fighter groups.

You won't find Tex Hill or Pappy Herbst in that list of the 'quoted'.

 

[drgondog]

Found it, it was an E-Book I read, called American Warplanes of WWII,By Colonel John D. Curren
Still trying to figure out what groups he was referring to.

Well, the 332nd (Tuskeegee) in MTO flew P-40 (99th FS), P-47 and P-51. The 23rd FG in PTO flew P-40 and P-51A and P-51B/C/D in PTO, the 3rd and 5th FG (Provisional -Chinese American) flew P-40 and P-51, and the 51st FG flew both.. look REAL hard to find the ones volunteering to give the P-51 up for the P-40.

 

[drgondog]

I'm compelled to mention I-16 and P-26 (although 6 individual pilots were given a victory credit on 12-12-41 flying the P-26 in 6FS.)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

That is just a bit hard to swallow. The US was telling it's student pilots in 1943 in a manual for the P-40 that the P-40 would no longer be issued to new squadrons and that they would fly different fighters than the P-40 when they joined combat squadrons. It may have continued to provide ground support in 1944/45 but was no longer considered a front rank aircraft and it's continued production into late 1944 can onlynbe considered an embarrassment.

Forigen operators still had orders for the aircraft. Did you ever think that many of those late model P-40s went to training units to free up much needed P-51s?

 

[Glider]

I will try to nominate an example from each country

UK Hurricane Battle
USA P39 Devestator
Germany HS 123 Do17
Italy BR20 CR 42
Japan Ki43

 

[DonL]

@ Glider,

why the Do 17?
What are the reasons to your opinion?

The Do 17 Z and the Do 215 B-5 were pretty competitive. Many pilots and even engineers stated after the war in german books, that a further developed Do 215 B-5 Kautz III (DB 601E and DB 605), would be a better nightfighter then the Me 110.

 

[davebender]

Do-17 has an interesting history.
Originally designed as a high speed mail aircraft. Cargo capacity too small to excel in that role.
Adopted by Luftwaffe as an interim medium / light bomber until something better was available.
Adopted by Luftwaffe as an interim night fighter aircraft until enough Me-110s were available.

So...
Failed in original design role.
Mediocre as interim bomber. Which was expected.
Showed serious potential as a night fighter aircraft but RLM wasn't interested.

Do-17 / Do-215 excelled only in a totally unexpected role. How do you judge such an aircraft?

 

[Glider]

The Do 17 was I believe out of date and to be honest clean forgot about the Do 215

As for the 8 vs 12 x 303 I have never really believed that the extra 4 x 303 made a significant difference and weight wise, extra ammo for the 8 x 303 would be a better bet.

Both the aircraft I suggested had a better range than the Spit or Hurricane which can only help. I think we all agree that range was the Achilles heel of the SPit and Hurricane

 

[timmy]

These old soldiers should have been replaced by much newer and advanced designs

The C-47 (DC-3) the PBY Catalina and the B17 Flying Fortress

They all had their maiden flights way back in 1935. Problem was nothing else could do the job better

Also Tiger Moths and Stearman trainers should be mentioned. Really if it isn't broken, why fix it