Three reasons why the P-40 was a better fighter in the PTO than the Spitfire

[nuuumannn]

Looks like you've got it all sewn up neatly, Cobber. So, what are you trying to prove by establishing this thread if you already know the answer? Thankfully (heaven help us...) the RAAF didn't have to bother with such box ticking when it had to go to war because both options were available to it. It chose the Spitfire for short range defence and the P-40 for long range fighter bomber duties and if I were in the same situation I would also make the same choices. Why bother trying to justify which was better when the answer is clear. Read your history books and learn about both types' use in the PTO by the RAAF.

 

[CobberKane]

Looks like you've got it all sewn up neatly, Cobber. So, what are you trying to prove by establishing this thread if you already know the answer? Thankfully (heaven help us...) the RAAF didn't have to bother with such box ticking when it had to go to war because both options were available to it. It chose the Spitfire for short range defence and the P-40 for long range fighter bomber duties and if I were in the same situation I would also make the same choices. Why bother trying to justify which was better when the answer is clear. Read your history books and learn about both types' use in the PTO by the RAAF.

Sorry Nuuumann, just making conversation. Maybe I feel a certain empathy for the P-40, being so ugly, underappreciated and all (*sob*).

 

[wuzak]

I couldn't find a direct comparison between the Spitfire V and the P-40, a Spit I was compared to the P-40s air cooled predecessor, the Hawk 75. From Wiki: "The Hawk was found to have lighter controls than the Spitfire at speeds over 300 mph (480 km/h), especially in diving attacks…"

What version of Spitfire was that? Metal ailerons or fabric?

Does having lighter controls mean it is a better diver?

And from Ray Hanna, who spent plenty of time in both types: "Where the P-40 excels and will throw out most other fighters is in diving, rolling manoeuvres".

He doesn't say that the Spitfire was better or worse or otherwise?

As neither the Spitfire or Zero were renowned for diving and rolling, I'd guess he was including them in his category of 'most fighters'

An assumption. Spitfires are renowned for their manoeuvrability, so diving qualities are probably glossed over.

Roll performance was lower than the P-40. But if that was a big deal, they could always clip the wings and gain that roll performance. As I said before, it requires unbolting the existing wingtips and bolting on a new set.

Several posts have refuted the assertion that the P-40 was superior to the Spitfire by comparing their performance figures. The Spitfire will always win this contest in the air, but to use its superior performance against the enemy in the PTO it would often need to take off and land from third rate fields and be kept operational in between.

That is quite true.

But how much difference between the Spitfire and the P-40 in regard of serviceability was down to the supply chain? As in there were plenty of Allison aircraft and the spares to keep them going, but a dearth of Merlins and spares.

The Spitfire was known as a tricky aircraft to land and take off in

According to the Luftwaffe pilots who tested them it was ridiculously easy to land and take-off in them.

Maybe the Griffon models were a bit tricky to get off the ground, mainly because of the strong torque reaction.

The P-40 didn't have the best ground handling, or take-off and landing characteristics:

The P-40 was noted for its landing qualities, many of them bad, according to pilot's testimony.

"The P-40 was the hardest to land of any of teh US World War II fighters".

AHT.

The P-40's undercarriage was quite narrow as well, which caused as many problems as on the Spitfire.

and it required highly skilled technicians to maintain it.

What was so much more difficult on teh Spitfire than the P-40?

Also, in response to the view that comparing the two is a case of apples and oranges as the P-40 was a fighter bomber and the Spitfire a pure fighter, I've never differentiated to much between these categories as I can't think of a single fighter that wasn't also a fighter bomber as the need arose.

Some went to fighter bombing because they were no longer up to the pure fighter role. The Spitfire V in the ETO is an example. The P-40 is an example everywhere.

Others, of course, because there were no more aerial targets.

I want my fighter to cover as many bases as possible and I still maintain the P-40 ticks more boxes.

Maye it ticks the fighetr-bomber box. But not much else.

The Spitfire was undoubtedly much better as an interceptor, or it should have been given the right tactics, although the figures suggest it didn't shine even in this role in the PTO.

But wasn't that because of the tactics used?

But at all but the highest altitudes the P-40 made similarly effective use of the same tactics

Which was, from what one of the earlier links said, where the battles over Darwin were fought.

plus it could take more punishment

What is your justification for this?

plus it was better in ground attack

Well, the Spitfre had more firepower. Surely that counts for something in ground attack?

plus it was easier to fly from goat tracks

AHT says that the P-40 wasn't particularly easy to take off and land with. Especially with cross winds. Does "flying from goat tracks" make it better?

plus it was easier to keep in the air.

Was this because it was easier to maintain, or because it had a better supply chain?

Like the Hurricane in the BoB it was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time.

Perhaps "because it was available" would be the better terminology?

I wouldn't say it was the "right aircraft", rather that it was there. Same with the Hurricane.

 

[pattle]

Maybe I feel a certain empathy for the P-40, being so ugly, underappreciated and all (*sob*).[/QUOTE]

Crikey you are living dangerously saying the P40 is ugly, don't be surprised if you wake up one night and find dozens of Americans stood outside your house carrying burning torches.

 

[CobberKane]

What version of Spitfire was that? Metal ailerons or fabric?

Did any Spit Mk Is have other than fabric control surfaces? I believe most if not all did, so Id think this was so of the one tested

Does having lighter controls mean it is a better diver?

Given that the overwhelming tendancy seems to be that controls stiffen as airspeed increases, yes

He doesn't say that the Spitfire was better or worse or otherwise?

No, he doesn't specifically compare the P-40 to the Spitfire in this regard. So show me a quote from a similarly experienced pilot stating that the Spitfire excels in diving and rolling Manoeuvres, or words to that effect, and I'll happly concede the point

An assumption. Spitfires are renowned for their manoeuvrability, so diving qualities are probably glossed over

.

For real? How would you characterise the second part of the above quote then?

Roll performance was lower than the P-40. But if that was a big deal, they could always clip the wings and gain that roll performance. As I said before, it requires unbolting the existing wingtips and bolting on a new set.

But they didn't, so far as I know, so in the real world we are stuck with unclipped Spitfires.

That is quite true.

But how much difference between the Spitfire and the P-40 in regard of serviceability was down to the supply chain? As in there were plenty of Allison aircraft and the spares to keep them going, but a dearth of Merlins and spares.

Yep, if nothing else US industrial might was bound to make a huge difference to supply. But the P-40 had other big advantages - I know Wiki is not everybody's favourite reference source so feel free to refute the following quote: "Comparisons between Allison engine and the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine are inevitable. What can be said for the Allison is that it made more power at less boost with a longer time between overhauls and the part count was nearly half that of the Merlin engine which facilitated mass production greatly. The British-made Merlin engines were still reliant upon hand-crafted and fitted parts from skilled craftsmen, something which was corrected by the redesign and success of the Packard V-1650 license-produced version of it in the United States, built with American production-line techniques. There also was a high degree of commonality of parts throughout the series. The individual parts of the Allison series were produced to a high degree of standardization and reliability, using the best technology available at the time."

According to the Luftwaffe pilots who tested them it was ridiculously easy to land and take-off in them

.

I believe you are paraphrasing one pilot, Werner Molders, who had one point of reference: the Bf109, a fighter renowned for its difficulty in landing and take-off.

The P-40's undercarriage was quite narrow as well, which caused as many problems as on the Spitfire.

Yes, the P-40 was nothing like as good in this respect as that other unglamorous work-horse, the Hurricane. But I was thinking as much of serviceability as flying characteristics. I can't see any way the splayed undercarriage of the Spitfire is going to be as forgiving of heavy landings of rough sufaces as the (somewhat) wider, up and down gear on the P-40, especially given the Kittyhawks reputation for toughness in adverse conditions. Also, I believe the P-40 had more prop to ground clearance, which was an issue with the Spit

Some went to fighter bombing because they were no longer up to the pure fighter role. The Spitfire V in the ETO is an example. The P-40 is an example everywhere.

Others, of course, because there were no more aerial targets.

The RNZAF, who absorbed the hard learned tactics of the US pilots flew plenty of ground attack and pure fighter missions with their small force of P-40s through to 1944, and were credited with something like a hundred Japanese fighters destroyed for a fraction of the losses in return. So it seems they were still up to it. Had they Japanese been able to field numbers of their later designs the story might have been different, but they didn't and it wasn't.

Maybe it ticks the fighetr-bomber box. But not much else

.

Whereas the Spitfire ticks the interceptor box but not much else?

But wasn't that because of the tactics used?

Yes. The Spit became much more effective once it started using the tactics the Americans were already using with their P-40sOnce it the right tactics were used it became much more efective

Which was, from what one of the earlier links said, where the battles over Darwin were fought.

I believe that once the early warning system was in place the P-40s were typically able to attack from above also, and took a significant toll on both Japanese Bombers and fighters

Well, the Spitfre had more firepower. Surely that counts for something in ground attack?

Something, yes. Just nowhere near as much as the ability to carry more bombs much further.

Was this because it was easier to maintain, or because it had a better supply chain?

Both

Perhaps "because it was available" would be the better terminology?

I would like to spend tonight with Cameron Diaz but unfortunately she is unavailable. That, even in the absence of all her other qualities, makes my wife the better woman.

 

[wuzak]

Given that the overwhelming tendancy seems to be that controls stiffen as airspeed increases, yes

Doesn't that also occur with the P-40?

At what speed does this occur? Does it inhibit the manoeuvrability of the aircraft? How does their acceleration compare (this, when all is said and done, is what is referred to as dive performance). The P-40 is heavier, so may possess the advantage in that respect, but does the little bit extra count?

Is the Spitfire still more manoeuvrable during the dive? Does this count for more than a little extra acceleration.

Was the Spitfire's dive performance advantage marginal over the Zero's? Or was it substantial?

No, he doesn't specifically compare the P-40 to the Spitfire in this regard. So show me a quote from a similarly experienced pilot stating that the Spitfire excels in diving and rolling Manoeuvres, or words to that effect, and I'll happly concede the point

I was speaking of diving manoeuvres only. Not contest in roll performance with the standard wing Spitfire.

For real? How would you characterise the second part of the above quote then?

As a generalisation.

But they didn't, so far as I know, so in the real world we are stuck with unclipped Spitfires.

Perhaps roll performance was not such a big deal. After all, if it were the option was available. And they'd already done it in the UK to try to combat Fw 190s.

Yep, if nothing else US industrial might was bound to make a huge difference to supply. But the P-40 had other big advantages - I know Wiki is not everybody's favourite reference source so feel free to refute the following quote: "Comparisons between Allison engine and the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine are inevitable. What can be said for the Allison is that it made more power at less boost with a longer time between overhauls and the part count was nearly half that of the Merlin engine which facilitated mass production greatly. The British-made Merlin engines were still reliant upon hand-crafted and fitted parts from skilled craftsmen, something which was corrected by the redesign and success of the Packard V-1650 license-produced version of it in the United States, built with American production-line techniques. There also was a high degree of commonality of parts throughout the series. The individual parts of the Allison series were produced to a high degree of standardization and reliability, using the best technology available at the time."

The hand crafted part is BS. Ford of the UK and Rolls-Royce were building Merlins with production line techniques before Packard started production.

Of the extra components in the Merlin, I think you'll find most of them are BA screws.

I believe you are paraphrasing one pilot, Werner Molders, who had one point of reference: the Bf109, a fighter renowned for its difficulty in landing and take-off

That may be so. I can't recall who said it.

Do you have anybody that said it was tough to land and take-off? I am speaking of early Merlin Spits, not the later hairy chested Griffon Spits.

Yes, the P-40 was nothing like as good in this respect as that other unglamorous work-horse, the Hurricane. But I was thinking as much of serviceability as flying characteristics. I can't see any way the splayed undercarriage of the Spitfire is going to be as forgiving of heavy landings of rough sufaces as the (somewhat) wider, up and down gear on the P-40, especially given the Kittyhawks reputation for toughness in adverse conditions. Also, I believe the P-40 had more prop to ground clearance, which was an issue with the Spit

Spits landed on grass airfields throughout the war. I suppose they were all bowling greens. What about in the deserts of North Africa, where they were imported to protect the P-40s? Did they have an issue there?

The RNZAF, who absorbed the hard learned tactics of the US pilots flew plenty of ground attack and pure fighter missions with their small force of P-40s through to 1944, and were credited with something like a hundred Japanese fighters destroyed for a fraction of the losses in return. So it seems they were still up to it. Had they Japanese been able to field numbers of their later designs the story might have been different, but they didn't and it wasn't.

1944....that would after the quality pilots were gone from the IJAAF and IJN?

Whereas the Spitfire ticks the interceptor box but not much else?

Isn't that what you require? Something to take down attacking Zeros?

Yes. The Spit became much more effective once it started using the tactics the Americans were already using with their P-40sOnce it the right tactics were used it became much more efective

Right, so tactics is the most important thing to take from the P-40 experience?

I believe that once the early warning system was in place the P-40s were typically able to attack from above also, and took a significant toll on both Japanese Bombers and fighters

How long is the warning?

Spitfire V time to climb to 30,000ft is ~12-13 minutes.
P-40E time to climb to 20,000ft is ~12 minutes.
P-40E time to climb to 25,000ft is ~29 minutes.
P-40E time to climb to 30,000ft is ~40 minutes. Which, btw is the aircraft's service ceiling.

Something, yes. Just nowhere near as much as the ability to carry more bombs much further.

And other options could carry bombs further.

 

[tomo pauk]

...

Yep, if nothing else US industrial might was bound to make a huge difference to supply. But the P-40 had other big advantages - I know Wiki is not everybody's favourite reference source so feel free to refute the following quote: "Comparisons between Allison engine and the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine are inevitable. What can be said for the Allison is that it made more power at less boost with a longer time between overhauls and the part count was nearly half that of the Merlin engine which facilitated mass production greatly. The British-made Merlin engines were still reliant upon hand-crafted and fitted parts from skilled craftsmen, something which was corrected by the redesign and success of the Packard V-1650 license-produced version of it in the United States, built with American production-line techniques. There also was a high degree of commonality of parts throughout the series. The individual parts of the Allison series were produced to a high degree of standardization and reliability, using the best technology available at the time."
...

I'll just address the bolded part. Stating that, presumably single-stage, 'Allison made more power at less boost' is screen and mirrors. What counts here (V-1710-39 (P-40D/E) vs Merlin 45/46/50 (Spit V)) is how much power was available for the prop at any given altitude. Here the V-1710 was a tad better between SL and 5-6000 ft, above that altitude those Merlins give more power.

 

[CobberKane]

Wuzak, the point for point format is making me dizzy so perhaps as a courtesy to everyone else we should abandon it. In defence of my countrymen I'd iterate that I said the RNZAF used the P-40 through to 1944, when there was still plenty of stiff opposition from the Japanese. And they did very well as I'm sure you would acknowledge.
One thing we can all learn from this discussion; if you want to start a thread with legs, diss the Spit, even if only implicity!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

and it required highly skilled technicians to maintain it.

Hogwash! There might have been systems that each aircraft possessed that made certain maintenance items more labor intensive but I see nothing on either aircraft that would require "highly skilled technicians". If you think otherwise or have specific information regarding this please educate this aviation mechanic (with those specific items) whose been either building or maintaining aircraft for the past 35 years!!!! I'm all ears!!!!

 

[drgondog]

Per anecdotal references to 'ease of handling' including landing.. A very fine RCAF pilot FltLdr Warren Peglar was an exchange pilot with the 354thFS/355th FG from mid July through the Frantic VII mission and late September. I have had a lot of exchanges with him over the past 40 years, and specifically on the qualities of the Tempest V, Spit (IV and IX), and Mustang. Note: in 402 missions with RAF/RCAF squadrons, Peglar encountered LW aircraft two times air to air, but like all fighter pilots rat raced with all types including P-47's and P-38's.

The two encounters were August 3 in which he shot down a JG300 190 and a JG 53 109, the September 11 in which he shot down two more 109s - one a low altitude high G turning engagement - all with Mustangs. Peglar finished as an 8th AF ace with four air and one ground, then added three ground with Tempests during the Bulge.

The point: When asked about the handling qualities it was Spit IX, Mustang, Tempest. When asked about combat capability it was Mustang, Spit then Tempest - only because the Mustang had the ability to go anywhere and the capability needed to get the job done - but he would have preferred the Spit if it had the range.

He stated that the Spit was the easiest to land and had no vices relative to ground looping - and I can say that you have to be alert in the 51 with a crosswind - but Warren stated that the Spit rolled out like it was on railroad tracks.

 

[MacArther]

Maybe I feel a certain empathy for the P-40, being so ugly, underappreciated and all (*sob*).

Crikey you are living dangerously saying the P40 is ugly, don't be surprised if you wake up one night and find dozens of Americans stood outside your house carrying burning torches.

RABBLE RABBLE BURN AND PILLAGE RABBLE RABBLE DESTROY THE P40 HATER RABBLE RABBLE!

Now that I've done my good American duty, onto the topic at hand. I love the P40, I do. I wish better things had been done for its engine, or its enemies had fought worse than they did. However, I acknowledge that the P40 was a stop-gap as far as interceptors go, and much more suited to fighter bomber roles. Down low, the P40 can drop its bombs and maybe mix it up with a low level fighter or two, and return to base if using the right tactics and planning. Up higher than 15,000 ft....well, the P-40F model was made for that reason, but the other models were definitely anemic in that regard.

 

[Juha]

What version of Spitfire was that? Metal ailerons or fabric?...

Spit Mk I, as CobberKain wrote, with fabric covered ailerons vs Curtiss Hawk H-75A-1 loaned from the French AF.

 

[Aozora]

Wuzak, the point for point format is making me dizzy so perhaps as a courtesy to everyone else we should abandon it. In defence of my countrymen I'd iterate that I said the RNZAF used the P-40 through to 1944, when there was still plenty of stiff opposition from the Japanese. And they did very well as I'm sure you would acknowledge.
One thing we can all learn from this discussion; if you want to start a thread with legs, diss the Spit, even if only implicity!

Have a read of "The Blue Arena" by Sqn Leader Bob Spurdle, a New Zealander and member of the RNZAF who flew Spitfires in combat over Europe and RNZAF P-40s in combat over the Pacific. In one passage he describes RNZAF P-40s escorting USAAF B-24s; once they dropped their bombs, the B-24s climbed and left the "escorting" P-40s floundering to catch up.

Yep, the P-40s performed okay in medium to low-level combat, but that's not to say that Spitfires in the competent hands of the NZ pilots would not have done even better.

 

[bobbysocks]

its all knowing the strength and weakenss of your ac and keeping within that envelope. most FGs in europe had some sort of "clobber college" where new recruits were given flight time in the 51 and dogfighting the groups vets. one group had a couple p-40s that the vets would fly in these mock DFs with the green pilots. they would would deal them a healthy dose of reality showing them that having the "superior" plane isnt enough by itself....

 

[nuuumannn]

Maybe I feel a certain empathy for the P-40, being so ugly, underappreciated and all

No need to apologise, Cobber, it just appears that you've already made up your mind without really assessing the situation. As for the P-40; all the pilot's reports I've read by Allied airmen who flew it express a fondness for it, even the die hard Spitfire afficionados. When Neville Duke, post war test pilot heard he was being transferred to Norrth Africa to 112 Sqn flying the Tomahawk and leaving his Spitfire Vs behind, he was none too happy, but came to admire and respect the Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, preferring the former as a fighter because of its lightness over the Kittyhawk. He didn't seem to mind its armament by comparison to both the Spit V and Kittyhawk. He also liked the bigger roomy cockpit compared to the Spit (most British pilots commented favourably on American cockpit spaces compared to their own indigenous products) and also that the Kittyhawk was more advanced in many ways compared to the Spit V.

Bottom line? They are two very different fighters in use in the similar environment. Sure, the P-40 was more suited to the PTO and North Africa, but the Spitfire, like I said did not suffer as much as many would have us believe. Like I stated earlier; its serviceability levels were no worse than any other fighter in theatre, which says a lot.

 

[wuzak]

Wuzak, the point for point format is making me dizzy so perhaps as a courtesy to everyone else we should abandon it.

Ok, that sounds fair.

 

[wuzak]

Spit Mk I, as CobberKain wrote, with fabric covered ailerons vs Curtiss Hawk H-75A-1 loaned from the French AF.

So not very applicable to a Spitfire V with metal ailerons vs the P-40.

And wasn't it this tendency to stiffen up the controls the reason why they changed quickly to metal ailerons in the Spitfire?

 

[pattle]

Perhaps this thread should have asked which was the more useful of the two aircraft in the PTO, I think if CobberKane is saying that the P40 was more useful than the Spitfire in the PTO then that sounds like a perfectly reasonable opinion to me.

 

[Glider]

Everyone is talking about the Spit V, Can I take it we agree that when the Spit VIII arrived it was game over in favour of the Spit?

 

[drgondog]

LOL - I thought it was 'Game over' when the Spit V was in service