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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I didn't think you were saying that but you were replying to a post that expressed something along those lines. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't know why Curtiss produced so few P-47s, it took about one year (or a bit less) form the contract date to rolling out the first one which doesn't actually seem too bad. It is the slow production after that is the puzzle. So far most online sources gloss over it with a sentence or two and provide no real answer. Boeing built Douglas A-20s in 1940/41 When B-17 orders didn't fill the Boeing factory. Lockheed's Vega Division built B-17s and so on, building other peoples aircraft wasn't a new concept to the US aviation industry. Even Grumman and Brewster sub contracted to each other in the lean days of the late 1930s.
In some cases the awarding of a contract could be decided on a company's past performance, making your main customer angry by late/slow deliveries is certainly no way to get future contracts. Perhaps Curtiss just bit off more than they could chew?

Thing with the work force was to point out that the work force (especially it's ability) could fluctuate. even if hundreds left every month hundreds more could/would be hired but the constant retraining was a drain ( Allison and many other companies had the same problem) and it just wasn't production workers that moved around. designers, engineers and managers also moved around. Don Berlin Himself started at Douglas, then moved to Northrop after 6-7 years, then moved to Curtiss after a few more and by 1942 was working for the Fisher div of General Motors, He left them in 1947 and went to McDonald. 5 Companies in 20 years and this was not uncommon in the 20's, 30's and 40's. Jack Northrop had gone through 6 companies ( 3 of them started by him) by 1940.
Without specific details it seems that the slow production of the P-47s is being answered by a lot of speculation. But anybody who had been in the aviation business for more than a few months in the mid/late 30s knew you couldn't stay in business selling old models of airplanes. Things were changing too quick. Going from no flaps to split flaps to slotted flaps and Fowler flaps to double slotted flaps took about 10 years for one example.

Companies might do design studies on their own but actually cutting metal on an unapproved plane took a LOT of guts and engines and propellers were gov furnished equipment and getting engines/propellers for unapproved projects ( there was NO commercial market for such items during the war, airliner engine deliveries were subject to government approval) would be late or non-existent unless you could convince the Army or Navy of the merits of the project before the engine/s were delivered.
 
The RAF giving the RNZAF and RAAF aircraft it didn't want for itself.
Click to expand...

Or rather could afford to do without by 1942/43.

The P-40 may be rugged, it may be pleasant/fun to fly, it may have a few tricks it can play on other airplanes. That doesn't mean it was a first class fighter at anytime in it's career.
Click to expand...

So, we're agreed then? The P-40 wasn't better than the Spitfire in the PTO?
 
I quite like the P-40 but the Spitfire was a better fighter.
I'm not convinced that it's geographic position at any particular time makes the slightest difference and nothing I've read here has given me cause for a second thought
Cheers
Steve
 

It certainly was expected that the Darwin Wing would do great things, and it is certainly true that in general it did not live up to expectations. The extent to which this can be blamed on the Spitfire, however is a very disputable claim to make.

Firstly though, lets put the P-40s achievements into perspective. In all TOs, throughout the war, it is now credited with about 1500 victories. The US post war wash up on claims prepred around 1946, gave it credit for 1320 victories in the pacific (from memory). That figure has been severely slashed downward since that initial wash up report. It might be responsible for half that number in the PTO.

For the RAAF, there is a very accurate report that places about 180 victories (again from memory) at the feet of our P-40s. Thats a very modest total by any standards.

Over darwin, the Spitfire Wing was meant to be the best of the best in the RAAF, but in fact it was a bit of a hasty lash up, and suffered badly from its leaderships insistence on using the wrong tactics. Men like Caldwell had done very well against the Germans using manouvre tactics against the Germans, but these hard won lessons in the ETO were absolutely the wrong tactics to use against the japanese. it took some time to unlearn these combat expereiences.

Moreover, over Darwin, the Australians really were up against the best of the best. The Japanese air wing they faced was largely undiluted in quality as the air wings over New Guinea had been diluted, and this skill showed.

Energy tactics were the way to go against the Zero, and whilst the p-40 was supeior to the Spit in certain resects, in other respects it was decidely inferior. the Spit was more manouverable and had a better climb rate. It is not relevant to compare the p-40 dive rate to the Spitfire dive rate. all that was needed was for both to be better than the Zero. and both were better. so, it was what to do with that advantage and when to use it that mattered, not that one might or might do something better than another fighter fighting on the same side.

Usualkly, the allied fighters would get the altitude advantage (something the P-40 struggled with) dive through the Japanese, and then do a tight turn at high speed at the bottom of that dive as the zero attempted to follow. The critical bit was the turn at the bottom of the dive and the speed of theaircraft at that point. the Spit could undertake those elements of the standard manouvre better than the P-40. But if your air group is not using those tactics in the first place, and sntead are trying to outmanouvre a known dog fighter....probably the best in the world at that time, then the results should come as no surprise.

The Spit was less durable than the P-40, but not in the sense of being a dogfighter. this counted in rough strip handling, and ground support roles, but counted for little in a dogfight with a 20mm armed enemy. If a P-40 was hit by a cannon burst, it would behave little differently to a spit, i would suggest.
 
Well, unless somebody can come up with a bunch of examples of P-40s flying top cover for P-40s after the Spitfires were based near/with them
Click to expand...

Well then. That settles it!

Stranger things have happened; on the day the RAF Museum's Dornier was shot down (by a Defiant, no less), 1 (Canadian) Sqn Hurricanes sped off to attack a formation of Heinkels, whilst 264 with its Defiants were left to tackle the Bf 109 escorts. 264 lost three Defiants and claimed six Do 17s and a single Bf 109. We know they got at least one Dornier that day!
 
[/QUOTE]

This at least seems to be something of a stretch. The Spitfire did not have a reputation for being fragile, but neither did it share the P-40s reputation for soaking up damage. As I mentioned earlier, this appears in line with fact that the P-40 was simply a bigger aircraft with much of it's weight in design features like a five spar wing, a feature the Soviets occasionally took advantage of in ramming LW aircraft. The radiator of the P-40, the achilles heel of any inline fighter, was also arguably better positioned to survive fire from the rear, the direction most attacks came from. Before any roaming climate change deniers leap in yelling 'prove it' - I can't, anymore than I can 'prove' the P-47 was more battle resistant than the Spitfire. I can only go on the preponderance of the surviving opinion from the men who flew it and the structure of the aircraft themselves.
 
Now here's something interesting. I found this post on a gamers forum - not the most reliable source of data, except that in this case the post is largely a transcript of an RAAF comparison of the Kittyhawk and Spitfire V as flown over Darwin. It makes for some surprising reading

RAAF comparition of P-40 vs Spitfire V | Forums

The RAAF found that the Spitfire was far more manoeuvrable at all altitudes and also climbed better, which no-one questioned. It also found the Kittyhawk was far better in roll and dive, which some people did. The Kittyhawk was also acknowledged as handling dirt runways better although the Spit had a shorter take off run.
Now the surprising bits. The Kittyhawk was faster up to 16000 ft and accelerated better than the Spitfire, even in level flight. Yes, I know: "Ïf the Spitfire didn't have the Volkes filter..." But it did - these are the aircraft used over Darwin, tested by the airforce that flew them, not "what ifs". In dogfights up to 16000 ft the Kittyhawk was at least the equal of the Spitfire, with the added advantage that it could engage and disengage at will, largely due to its superior roll and dive. At these altitudes it was therefore regarded as the better fighter. The Spitfire was regarded as the better fighter overall due largely to ease of flight - this assessment was apparently a reflection of the performance in the air and did not take into account factors such as fighter-bombing duties or serviceability.
Perhaps the humble P-40 deserves a bit more respect?
 
The report recommended removing the filters for operations. Did this happen?

And again, if the roll was such an issue they could have ordered the clipped wing tip kits. They would have lost a bit of climb performance, but they had advantage over the P-40 in spades. The question is whether or not it had the advantage over the Zero.

It's not that surprising that the P-40 was faster at lower altitudes - that's where the engine worked its best, whereas the Spitfire's engine worked better 6-8000ft higher.

The conclusion of the report was still that the Spitfire be preferred for operations.

Also, would be interesting to know what the condition of the two aircraft was - my understanding is that the RAAF Mk Vs were war weary aircraft, not newly built ones.
 
I guess we could approach it from two angles; that the RAAF got it wrong, failing to realise that the Volkes filter was un-needed and could be dumped, or that clipping the spits wingtips would allow the Spit to roll (and dive) with the 'far better' P-40, or that they didn't notice they were comparing a clapped out Spitfire to a hot rod Kittyhawk, or any number of other speculative reasons why the Spit didn't ace the P-40 like it should have. Or we could assume that the RAAF knew what they were doing, and the P-40 had its own attributes that made it every bit the equal of the Spitfire up to 16000 ft. Personally I've found that the simple explanation is usually the right one.
 
Now if the Japanese had co-operated and flown their raids at 15,000-20,000ft we might not be having this discussion. But they didn't.

And what was one reason the P-40 was a successful fighter bomber in New Guinea? Perhaps the Spitfires fly top cover for them?

BTW the Volkes filter gets more than it's share of blame, The Australians did try pulling a few of them. Trouble is that when you pull the Volkes filter you need a whole new bottom cowl panel which the Australians didn't have so they had to try to fabricate them. Results turn out to be about 5-10mph speed difference between the Volkes filter and the local cowl panels.
 
This report was done before they went operational (AFAIK).

There was a recommendation to remove the Vokes filter. I simply ask if that recommendation was acted upon.

As for the rolling, they didn't seem too perturbed by it, since they, apparently, didn't recommend the change to clipped wing tips. Which would have improved that aspect of performance, and was a simple thing to implement, providing they could get (or make) the parts.

And since the Zeroes were rolling in at 25k ft, does it really matter that the P-40 could break of an engagement with a Spitfire at 16k?
 
I'm sure the Vokes filter would have affected the dive performance as well as the top speed. Since it produced drag.

It also comes ack to an earlier decision made by the MAP. They put the Merlin XX in the Hurricane in hopes of getting some benefit, and bypassed the Spitfire III in favour of the V. The V was basically a II with a Merlin 45, while the III had the Merlin XX and was tidied up a bit aerodynamically.
 

I think you are reading what you want into that report. "the P-40 had its own attributes that made it every bit the equal of the Spitfire up to 16000 ft. " is not stated in the report is it? Nearly equal may be more like. While the P-40 can keep from being shot down in the four different test combats it also cannot dominate the Spitfire at any time. Just like the superior turn of the Hurricane the "diving away" is a defensive move that leaves the battlefield to the opponent. Not bad in a one on one dual but of questionable effectiveness for either a bomber interceptor or bomber interceptor.

Quote " Combat 4 - Commence at 16,000ft (height advantage to Spitfire) and lasted 11 minutes. Spitfire pounced on Kittyhawk and attempted to gain a position on tail. Kittyhawk used speed advantage in first level flight and then shallow dive to gain separation and then climb for advantage. Spitfire countered by climbing hard. Gaining advantage Spitfire used climb and dive tactics to force the Kittyhawk to make repeated diving breaks to avoid. At 7,000ft Kittyhawk used superior roll rate to scissor behind the Spitfire, who countered with steep climb. Kittyhawk then used speed advantage to again gain separation and fight was broken off."

Notice that the Spitfires climb can be used in combat and not just to get to altitude for the intercept. Also in 3 of the 4 test fights the P-40 broke off the combat by diving away leaving the area to the Spitfire. While the Spitfire may not have established a dicisive advantage or "scored" shoot downs it doesn't look like the P-40 was "every bit the equal" to me.
 
I think you are reading what you want into that report. "the P-40 had its own attributes that made it every bit the equal of the Spitfire up to 16000 ft. " is not stated in the report is it? Nearly equal may be more like.
Click to expand...

The report says "Thus, in combat up to 16,000ft, the Kittyhawk has the distinct advantage in that the pilot can commence the fight and discontinue it at will." (my italics) You interpret this as 'nearly equal"- and I'm reading what I want into the report?
Re this P-40 only achieving it's reputation as a fighter bomber courtesy of top cover from Spitfires, I guess that explains it's lousy air to ground performance in China, where Spits weren't there to look after it.
 
Last edited:
It's always nice to break from combat (ie run away) whenever it suits you. But if you can't get into an winning position against an enemy invading your airspace, what good is that?
 
my understanding is that the RAAF Mk Vs were war weary aircraft, not newly built ones.
Click to expand...

Actually, they weren't. That's another misconception about the Spit Vs or 'Capstans' as they were named for secrecy reasons. They were on the whole, new aircraft with a few exceptions. For example, the first arrivals in Australia were made in October 1942; among these was F.VC BS158 (A58-11, although not all the Aussie Spits wore their Aussie serials), which first flew on 16 June 1942, went to 39 MU on the 18th, then 46MU on the 8th July, then was loaded aboard ship on the 30th before arriving in Australia on 18th October. The last Mk.V delivered to the RAAF was MH646, which was the last Mk.V built at Castle Bromwich; it went to a couple of MUs, the first on 31 July 1943 before being loaded aboard ship for Aussie on 20th August and arriving in Australia on 16 November '43.

One among many minor issues that was discovered on arrival was that the Spitfires had many differences among them. Some had metal control surfaces, some had metal covered in fabric and some had wooden ones covered in fabric. There was also differences in radiator fits among them (apparently some Mk.Vs had bigger underwing radiators for tropical use - I'd not heard of this beforehand), so some overheated faster than others.

The interesting thing about the report is that despite such tests, the RAAF initially had a hard time against the Japanese because of the tactics it used, attempting to mix it with the Zeros, which was a costly mistake, so if wuzak is right and the report was made before the Spitfires entered service it proved to be of no value at all in combatting the Japanese. It would be interesting to make a similar comparison between the Spit VIII and the P-40.

By the way, it's a Vokes filter, not 'Volkes' as written in the article.
 
Last edited:
What was the opposition like in China? Compared with North Africa.
Click to expand...

It seems a good comparison - tropical country (in those regions) similar opposing aircraft perhaps somewhat more formidable in that the Tojo and Frank made limited appearances - but then the P-40s and Spits in New Guinea also had to deal with the Tony. Mostly the P-40s flew fighter bomber missions and contended with Ki-43s. As for much of the time they were the only US fighters around, they provided their own top cover and did fine. I've recently read a book about the theatre and the combat accounts did not generally mention any great numerical advantages one way or the other.
If I had both Spit Vs and P-40's to use on a fighter bomber mission, the allocation of roles would be a no brainer - P-40s for the grunt work and Spits for top cover, because the P-40 with its longer range, better bomb load and tougher construction make it a better fighter bomber. The Spit would get the top job not because it is the better air to air weapon at these altitudes - the RAAF comparison indicates it was not - but because the P-40 is the better ground pounder.
In regards to the Spit's undoubted superiority over both the P-40 and the Zero at altitude; the Japanese bombed Darwin from high altitude not because they liked the view, but because they had to. Darwin had a good early warning system (Coastwatchers?) and if the Japanese came in much below 20000 ft even the P-40s could wheeze their way to an altitude advantage, as they often did . Thus the P-40s can take a piece of the credit for at least limiting the damage before the Spits arrived to carry on the fight. Also, as the allies went more and more on the offensive, the Spits altitude prowess would have been increasingly less relevant. The allies predominantly bombed low, where the Spit V was no more capable than the P-40 in the air to air role and lacked the range as an escort.
Spit VIII v P-40? The VIII was a big jump forward from the V and a better air to air weapon than the P-40 just about everywhere. Maybe in roll and perhaps dive there might have been some advantage but the Spit was so much better everywhere else it would make no difference. I wouldn't be risking my pretty Spits in the jabo role though - still plenty of rusty old P-40s around for that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Why did the U.S. navy reject the F6U Pirate?
Replies
10
Views
344
eagledad
E
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
M
Why Didn't The RAF use Beaufighters Instead of Typhoons In The ETO
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
How good a plane was the P-40, really?
23 24 25
Replies
493
Views
40K
Think Tanker
Menu
Log in
Register