USA combat aircraft

[Shortround6]

Why didn't the USA have a comparable aircraft in full production to the Spitfire/109 in the 1930s? It's odd that we critical to the Italians or Russians of Japanese for been behind but the Americans were also behind too.

A lot of this has been answered. The US was not ordering aircraft in large numbers until 1939 and 1940. The order for 210 P-36As on July 7th 1937 was the largest aircraft order the US had placed since WW I. This was due, as has been mentioned, due to finances, lack of enemies or potential enemies within flying range, and a simple lack of squadrons to put them. Much like the British and French (and even the Germans) the number of existing squadrons was nowhere near the number of squadrons in existence in 1939/40 or 1941.

Key words here seem to be in full production and then the term 1930s seems to be a bit flexible. 310 Spitfires were ordered on June 3 1936 yet the first production plane was flown May 15th 1938. Which is actually AFTER the first production P-36 was delivered. Curtiss taking a year less than Supermarine to get into production. Granted the first P-36s had a number of problems, however the Germans were building 109s with Jumo 210 engines with carburetors for most of 1938 so while the Spitfire, even with fixed pitch prop enjoyed a healthy speed advantage (climb was much less marked) over the P-36 the Bf 109C/D did not.
The US also had the 2nd string P-35.

However the US was not satisfied with either of these planes and had announced a fighter design competition for Jan 1939.
Entries included Lockheed XP-38, the Bell XP-39, the Seversky/Republic XP-41 (AP-2) and XP-43 (AP-4), and four planes from Curtiss, the H75R, XP-37, XP-40 and XP-42. Nor all aircraft were ready in time.

Now to show just how "backwards" the US was at the time, the XP-38, XP-39, Seversky AP-4 and XP-37 all had turbo superchargers.
The Seversky AP-2 and H75R both had 2 stage supercharged P & W R-1830 radials an early version of the engine used in the F4F.
The XP-42 was a P-36 with an extension shaft and a long pointy nose on the radial engine.
The P-40 was chosen as the low risk, fast into production option.
But how many other nations could even assemble two different turbo charged planes and two different mechanical 2 stage supercharged planes ( the XP-38 and XP-39 were no shows) on the same airfield at the same time?
The Seversky AP-4 was ordered into production as the P-43 and the first production aircraft was delivered in Aug of 1940.

Now one reason the US planes lagged behind the Spitfire and 109 in performace in 1940 was that they were designed to fly almost twice as far. The P-36 holding 160 US gallons inside although not rated for combat with the rear tank holding fuel. The P-35 and P-43 were fitted with integral tanks (which did leak) holding even more fuel. P-40s even with self sealing fuel tanks held over 140 US gallons inside.
SO the Spitfire and 109E couldn't meet US range requirements. Physical size of the US demanding greater range.
The US planes also carried more ammo per gun than the British Fighters and the P-40B&C could keep firing the cowl .50s long, long after the 109E-3 ran out of cannon shells.

Please remember that fighter Vs Fighter combat was only part of the duties. Fighter Vs bombers was also expected and fighters with large ammo supplies could engage more targets. Perhaps not often but multiple intercepts were done.

 

[Shortround6]

Against the Allison Ponwered p-40 the DB601 gave huge benefits at altitude, but much less so low down.

I agree with everything but this. Yes the 109 had huge benefits at altitude but it had much more to do with the 109 being much lighter than any real attribute of the DB601 engine.

 

[The Basket]

A few clear ups
I certainly believe that the USA could have flown a first class fighter prototype in 1935 or 36 but didn't because of the reasons specified.
My premise is that because of delays the main defensive fighter in December 1941 at Pearl and Philippines was the P-40.
My other premise is again the best American fghter that the French bought or could buy was the Hawk 75.
As mentioned the P-40 was reasonably competitive against the Emil but so was the Hurricane.

 

[swampyankee]

The P-40 was heavier than the Bf109, was as nearly as fast or faster on the same power, was reputed to have better handling, had better maneuverability under some flight conditions, demonstrated at least comparable success in combat against the Bf109, but the US plane is the dog? And German designers were infinitely better and smarter?

How about this: the Luftwaffe started WW2 with a better grasp of air combat tactics than the RAF and the Commonwealth and maintained that edge in tactical skills until at least the defeat of Italy and the grinding down of the Luftwaffe in the aerial equivalent of trench warfare, not with markedly superior aircraft. I think it's accurate to say that the P-40 was not markedly inferior to the Bf109, and that the next generation of USAAF and RAF fighters were better than the Messerschmidt and the FW190. There wasn't enough combat to directly compare the USN aircraft to the Bf109 or the FW190, but I don't believe any Luftwaffe fighter pilot would chortle with joy after meeting a Corsair or Hellcat in combat.

 

[Shortround6]

A few clear ups
I certainly believe that the USA could have flown a first class fighter prototype in 1935 or 36 but didn't because of the reasons specified.
My premise is that because of delays the main defensive fighter in December 1941 at Pearl and Philippines was the P-40.
My other premise is again the best American fghter that the French bought or could buy was the Hawk 75.
As mentioned the P-40 was reasonably competitive against the Emil but so was the Hurricane.

The US was flying "first class fighter prototypes in 1935 or 36" they were the P-35 and P-36. The first P-36 (or Hawk 75) flew in May of 1935 which is 10 months before the Spitfires first flight and 6 months before the Hurricanes first flight. It was the same month the the first flight of a 109 was made. Both the Hawk and Bf 109 flew with engines that would not see production aircraft. The Germans, having no suitable engine of their own used a British Kestrel. The 3rd Bf 109 prototype doesn't fly until May of 1936, in part because there are no Jumo 210 engines available to power it.during this time the Hawk 75 went through about 4 engine changes.

The very first Hawk 75 prototype, in addition to multiple engine changes, was converted to the first XP-37 prototype with Turbo-charged Allison engine. It first flew in April of 1937. the XP-40 airframe was the 10th P-36 off the production line so where the idea that the US wasn't able to design "first class" fighters come from is puzzling.

The main obstacle for any country trying to design a first class fighter from 1935 to 1938-39 was the lack of first class engines.
The Jumo 210 may have been a very nice engine but it was in the same class as the Kestrel, a 20 liter engine just wasn't big enough.
The Merlin had a lot of teething troubles and the British radials were too small and too old in design concept or couldn't be made in production quantities (sleeve valves).
The French Hispano engine was also too old in concept and while it did OK in the 30s it was about to slam into a wall, development wise.
Radials the size of the R-1830 if limited to 87-92 octane fuel weren't going to provide the power needed either (this takes out the Italians and Japanese).
The Germans were able to shoehorn the DB 601 engine into the small 109 airframe and were able to get the 20mm guns in the wing to work by late 1939 so they just squeaked in. It sure wasn't good planning or development as it took until the spring of 1941 to get the through the prop hub gun to work which had been part of the original requirement back in 1934. The requirement had been for a fighter with either two machine guns in the cowl or one cannon firing through the prop hub.

One could also note that the Hawk 75 was as good or better than anything the French were building at the time of purchase and that the Dewoitine D.520 only started to enter squadron service in Jan 1940.

 

[The Basket]

Trap here is which 109 which P40.
One could say yeah the Emil and the P40 is competitive. Mention the Friedrich and that's a can of worms.
The French also could have done better and they paid the price. But the point has to be told that the RAF did not use the P-40 as a first line fighter on home soil.

 

[tomo pauk]

Friedrich is not Emil. RAF use of P-40 having no bearing on US use of P-40.
Why moving the goal post again?

 

[Shortround6]

Mentioning the Friedrich does open whopping can of super worms.
The Friedrich's that had wings and tails fall-off?
The Friedrich was eventually turned into a first class fighter but it took a while. It also a case of jack up the canopy and slide a new fighter underneath, lower the canopy and and announce the new "model" of fighter. Some what of an exaggeration but you had a new spinner covering a new propeller which was hooked up to a new version of the DB 601 engine which was covered by a new cowl and used (after a few prototype/early production series) a new air intake and was cooled by a new radiator installation which was installed in....you guessed it....the new wingIII which often broke so it had to have a reinforced spar and heavier wing skinning, changes to slats and ailerons were also made in addition to the wing tips. The rake of the landing gear was also changed. Vertical fin was changed as was the rudder and the horizontal stabilizer lost the bracing struts (a mistake?) and were moved lower.
Performance was much enhanced but the cut in armament, especially on the early ones is something of a problem. What do the Germans do? use the "F"s against British fighters and keep squadrons of "E"s around to intercept bombers?
Sixty 20mm shells per plane is hardly bomber killing armament in 1940/41. Sure they shot down some but how many planes escaped because the German pilots ran out of ammo? The 15mm gun was something of an improvement but was biased more to fighter combat than bomber interceptions. The high MV aiding defection shooting but the low HE content lowered the damage per hit.
Shortages of the new engine also meant that the early Friedrich while an improvement on teh 109E weren't up to full potential.

The French could only have done better by developing a new engine starting in 1934 or so and moving to better fuel in time for the Spring of 1940. No amount of minor fiddling around with the Hispano engine was going to make it competitive in 1940 with 87 octane fuel.

 

[GrauGeist]

Yes, the Germans made improvements in the Bf109 (several times) to keep it competitive with the Allied fighters. And they were able to pull that off and did manage to keep the Bf109 in the fight until the end of the war - after a great deal of effort and expense.

But instead of the U.S. relying on the hopes that they could constantly and successfully improve the P-40, they introduced newer and better types. So as the P-40's competitive edge was waning, newer types were being developed and introduced. The British were doing the same.

As it stands, the P-40 was the primary horse the U.S. had to put in the race and it performed well. It also has the distinction of being one of the few fighters of WWII that served at one time or another on every front and everywhere it went, it's presence was felt by the enemy.

 

[Shortround6]

And what is amazing is that the P-40 was never intended to be the main fighter of the US Army. It was intended as an interim fighter to equip the US Army squadrons with while the Army and manufacturers worked on the planes the Army really wanted. The P-38, P-39 and P-43/P-44. However the Army's crystal ball had more than one crack in it and some of these planes took longer to get in service than the Army planed on and early combat reports cast a lot of doubt on the suitability of some of them. The P-44 wasn't enough of an advance over the P-43 to be worth pursuing (assuming it would come into service in late 1941/early 1942) so it was dropped and Republic shifted to the P-47B. P & W was probably not sorry to see the last of the R-2180 as it took resources away from the R-2800.
The US also deferred delivery of a number of P-40s so the French/British orders could be completed quicker, the US Production slots being moved further to the rear of queue. This meant the US was slower to get the P-40 into widespread use in US squadrons but not that the US was slow in developing the fighter.

 

[mikewint]

I think that the initial question of this post has been answered many times. The US was not a continental or world power in the 1930s and was totally disinterested in becoming one. Maintaining a standing army and air corps was a low priority to a country mired in the Great Depression. Isolationist America was only interested in maintaining its ocean separation from the battles in Europe and Asia. Thus the Navy fared somewhat better. The Douglas TBD Devastator is a prime example of this mind set. It was ordered in 1934, it first flew in 1935 and entered service in 1937. At that point, it was the most advanced aircraft flying for the Navy and possibly for any navy in the world. However, the fast pace of aircraft development, driven by the exigencies of war combat in Europe and Asia, quickly caught up with it. By the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the TBD was already outdated. Its performance at Midway, i.e.: the 41 Devastators launched during the battle produced zero torpedo hits and only six survived to return to their carriers, tells how badly they were outclassed. Now before anyone jumps in here, yes I am well aware of the fact that some of those zero hits can be attributed to the many well-documented defects in the US Mark 13 torpedo, the fact still remains that the aircraft was immediately withdrawn from frontline service after Midway and was replaced by the Grumman TBF Avenger.
The P-40
The P-40 design was a modification of the previous Curtiss P-36 Hawk which reduced development time and enabled a rapid entry into production and operational service. It was the third most-produced American fighter with 13,738 having been built. The P-40's lack of a two-speed supercharger made it inferior to Luftwaffe fighters such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 or the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 in high-altitude combat and thus it was rarely used in operations in Northwest Europe. However, in the Pacific Theater the P-40's performance at high altitudes was not as important. In the Pacific the P-40 performed surprisingly well as an air superiority fighter, at times suffering severe losses but also taking a very heavy toll of enemy aircraft. The P-40 was the Sherman tank of the air. It was easy and cheap to manufacture. These pluses kept it in production as a ground-attack aircraft long after it was obsolete as a fighter.
The P-40 was very agile at low and medium altitudes but suffered due to lack of power at higher altitudes as has already been noted. At medium and high speeds it was one of the tightest turning early monoplane designs of the war, and it could out turn most opponents. At low speeds the lightweight Zeros and Oscars could and did out-turn the P-40 but, the fastest model P-40 could outrun the fastest model Zeke by at least 30 mph and no model Zero could outrun its contemporary P-40 rival. The P-40's dive speed was also better. The normal dive limit speed for a P-40 was 480 mph and sometimes exceeded 500 mph. This proved especially useful using the hit and run tactics pioneered during the war. The structural integrity of the P-40's airframe could stand over 9 G's, far better then the frail Zeke. The Curtiss fighter also had pilot armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, standard for all U.S. fighters.
The P-40s ability to absorb punishment was amazing: Clive Caldwell, Australia's top-scoring ace with 28 1/2 victories and the leading P-40 ace with 20 1/2 of these victories was flying top cover for supply planes inbound for Tobruk when two Bf-109's led by the 114-victory ace Werner Schroer ambushed him. The German planes punched 108 machine gun bullets and five 20mm shells into Caldwell's P-40, damaging its instrument panel, controls, tail, wings, and wounding Caldwell in the back, shoulder and leg. Instead of crashing to the ground, the Tomahawk managed to stay airborne and instead of attempting to escape, Caldwell turned into his attackers and returned fire. He shot down Schroer's wingman, unnerving Schroer to the point that he ran for home. The Australian ace made it home.
In Italy the 325th fighter group on 1 July 1943 sent 22 P-40s to make a fighter sweep over southern Italy. Forty Bf-109s surprised the P-40s, engaging them at moderate altitude where the P-40 performed best. After an intense dogfight the Germans lost half their force while only one P-40 failed to come back.
A similar event took place on the 30th of the same month in which 20 P-40s were bounced by thirty-five 109s. The Germans limped home after losing 21 of their own while the P-40s came through with only one loss. The Germans lost 135 aircraft (ninety-six of which were 109s) to the pilots of the 325th fighter group's P-40s while shooting down only seventeen P-40s.
In China, actually Burma, Chennault's AVG (American Volunteer Group) better known as the "Flying Tigers" amassed a staggering total. They began combat operations on 20 December 1941 and recorded an unprecedented 70 to 1 kill ratio, 296 (although some sources say 286) enemy aircraft confirmed and an additional 153 probable for a loss of only 12 planes and 3 pilots in air combat. The tactics of The Flying Tigers were the key to its astounding record. The early warning net (a primitive yet effective network of spotters and radio operators set up to report enemy aircraft) would report the position, direction, and estimated altitude of incoming Japanese aircraft. The Flying Tigers would climb above the enemies' altitude on an intercepting course. On sighting the Japanese they would dive on them at high speed and slash through their formation, guns blazing. After the attack the Tigers would use the speed from the dive to exit the combat zone and climb for another pass. It was essentially a drive-by shooting.
This method of fighting did not go over well with the Chinese and British flyers in the area. British pilots seen diving away from combat would be court-martialed and Chinese pilots seen doing the same would be shot. However, as the Flying Tigers' success mounted other units adopted their tactics.
In short the P-40 was not a great aircraft but it had many advantages and if flown in its best performance envelope could and did match any Axis aircraft.

 

[GrauGeist]

And it was the successes of the Commonwealth pilots flying the Kittyhawk in North Africa that forced the Luftwaffe to accelerate the transition of their units from the Bf109E to the Bf109F. Especially after several of their Experten were downed.

 

[buffnut453]

Mike,

I think you need to check your sources and differentiate between claims and actual losses. For example, the event on 30 July 1943 was nowhere near as one-sided and the numerical advantage was with the P-40s.

In reality, there were 36 P-40s from the 325th FG (20 from 317th Fighter Squadron and 16 from the 319th Fighter Squadron). The Luftwaffe serviceability report for 29 July reported a total of 25 serviceable Me109s available (there were only 34 present in total according to the orbat) so there couldn't have been 35 Bf109s in the sky during the engagement. The Luftwaffe serviceability report for 29 July 1943 is as follows:
II / JG51 had 5 Bf109s of which 2 were serviceable
III / JG77 had 29 Bf109s, 23 of which were serviceable

Only JG77 was involved in this engagement - JG51 didn't fly on 30 July (no surprise since they only had 2 serviceable aircraft). One aircraft of JG77 was engaged in a reconnaissance mission away from the area of the combat with the 325th (it, too, was shot down but by other Allied fighters) leaving a max of 22 Bf109s for the engagement with the 325th.

The 325th FG flew the sweep from 08:00 to 11:05, and made claims from 09:45 to 10:15. Final claims tally was:
- 21 Bf 109s destroyed
- 3 Bf 109s probably destroyed
- 1 Mc. 202 probably destroyed
- 3 Bf 109s damaged

III/JG 77 scrambled from Chilivani at 09:25. Four Bf109s from the Gruppe were shot down, with one pilot killed and three wounded. A first-hand account from Eduard Isken mentions the presence of Lightnings as well. III / JG77 pilots claimed five P-40s shot down between 09:40 and 10:10.

Only one of the 36 American aircraft involved was lost on this mission, and none were damaged. Lt. Bob Sederberg failed to return, and was taken prisoner.

Clearly, the P-40s came off better in the fight but even if the entire Gruppe strength was involved, they were still at a 39% numerical disadvantage. For the record, the sole MC202 claimed as Probably Destroyed was mis-identification. No Italian fighters reported engagements on this date in the vicinity.

Sorry for the pedantry but I think it's better to compare apples to apples in this type of discussion.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[mikewint]

No problem Mark, only have the one source and wrote what it stated. Always liked the P-40 and it was deadly IF flown within its envelope

 

[The Basket]

Friedrich is not Emil. RAF use of P-40 having no bearing on US use of P-40.
Why moving the goal post again?

One aspect that I forget when talking about the P-40 is the use of the shark mouth nose art.
The P-40 is vastly superior to the Zero or 109 in this regard.

 

[GrauGeist]

One aspect that I forget when talking about the P-40 is the use of the shark mouth nose art.
The P-40 is vastly superior to the Zero or 109 in this regard.

Not necessarily...

 

[vikingBerserker]

Yea, I have to vote for the P-40 on that one.

 

[buffnut453]

No problem Mark, only have the one source and wrote what it stated. Always liked the P-40 and it was deadly IF flown within its envelope

I like the P-40 too. I do feel it's an underrated aircraft. Like any moderately competitive combat aircraft, when flown to optimize its strengths and shield its weaknesses it could, indeed, be deadly. Get it in its element with proficient pilots and it performed well. Put it in a role for which it isn't suited (like high altitude) and it won't succeed. No different for any other airframe in that regard...with the possible exception of the P-51 which is like that annoying kid at school who gets straight 'A's, is the starting QB, is so handsome that he gets all the girls...AND he's a nice chap to boot.

 

[mikewint]

During the summer of 1941, No. 112 Squadron RAF, which had lost all its Gloster Gladiators in Greece the previous spring, was re-equipped with Tomahawks (British name for the P-40). Its pilots took one look at their sleek new mounts and decided that the P-40's cowling would make an ideal place to paint the squadron badge, a black cat. The results, however, looked more fishlike than feline, and soon a variety of shark mouths were being applied to the Tomahawks and, later, to the deeper-jowled Kittyhawks. For some reason, British authorities did not discourage No. 112 Squadron's flamboyant liveries. The P-40 shark mouth would soon be adopted in other units and other air forces.

 

[GrauGeist]

In the photo I posted above, this is a Bf109D of II./JGr176 (later II./ZG76), which had Sharkmouth schemes on their aircraft starting from late 1938 onward. They were well known for their Sharkmouth schemes, especially after the Gruppe converted to the Bf110, keeping the scheme.

This was perhaps the first instance of Sharkmouths being a uniform scheme in any Air Force unit.