buffnut453
Captain
Strange that you're not accustomed to that yet.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And another joke crashes and burns.
I still do.If you were in England you could call the AA.
Shot down by AAA or a far out CAP?
The question is if any other fighter of the time, in similar conditions , have done any better? Or perhaps much better?
Would you include proper tactics in that category of 'similar conditions'? If we're judging the two machines in that time and space it really seems the P-40 was used properly (more often, at least) vs. the Ki43 than the Hurricane was.
It may have taken a while to adapt but I think they eventually did, probably in 1942. I suspect the real problem was that the Hurricane was just not well adapted to the hit and run role, due to some characteristics of the aircraft.
Having now looked thoroughly through the operational history of the Ki-43 in Burma and India, I think the answer to that question is clearly a resounding yes., The P-40 units did much better than the Hurricane units.
I have not read the operational histories so I am not making a judgement either way. I was trying to read on Osprey book on Hurricane aces but it is near useless. It might be 100% accurate, but mostly it just says which pilots shot down what and when. Not much how or why as far has how the planes got into the positions for deciding bursts. Like which formation started higher or other advantages or disadvantages, I am not saying never, but not often enough to draw any conclusions.Would you include proper tactics in that category of 'similar conditions'? If we're judging the two machines in that time and space it really seems the P-40 was used properly (more often, at least) vs. the Ki43 than the Hurricane was.
See page 88 of Shores' Bloody Shambles volume 3. They're well into 1943 and it seems like the 'boom and zoom' tactics proposed by Paul Richey aren't received too well by the higher ups.
My feeling is that because the Hurricane was a very good 'turn-fighter' against most fighters, there was some stubbornness in letting go of that approach. The P-40 had no hope in this regard,
so they were forced to adopt proper tactics right away.
At least by the same time next year (with Spitfires, as you say) things are in writing:
TACTICAL BULLETIN NO. 34
SPITFIRES IN THE ARAKAN (DEC. 1943 / MAR. 1944)
...
Perhaps the most notable feature of the Fighter v. Fighter operation is the reversal of Tactics in this theatre as opposed to the Western War, where our fighter squadrons used their superior manoeuvrability to tactical advantage.
The lesson is obvious. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DOG FIGHT THE JAP. Keep your speed and use the superior dive and climb of the Spitfire then the Jap fighters cannot use their manoeuvrability.
...
Emphasis in original.
I have not read the operational histories so I am not making a judgement either way. I was trying to read on Osprey book on Hurricane aces but it is near useless. It might be 100% accurate, but mostly it just says which pilots shot down what and when. Not much how or why as far has how the planes got into the positions for deciding bursts. Like which formation started higher or other advantages or disadvantages, I am not saying never, but not often enough to draw any conclusions.
As far as both the P-40 and Hurricane go, there were several versions of each from early 1942 to 1944/45 and they may or may not have operated the same. The Hurricane was slower, it dived slower so it can not use the P-40 dive away from trouble as well. Books on victories don't often give accounts of get aways
The Hurricanes may very well have flown in the same time and space. I have no idea if they were flying the same missions. British tactical air in Normandy is a classic example. They had more Typhoons than Spitfires. Over a several month period the Typhoons claimed 2 (yes 2) air to air victories, The smaller Spitfire contingent claimed several score of German aircraft.
Hurricanes can use a much shorter airfield than a P-40. Maybe they always shared airfields, I don't know but there could be legitimate reasons why some commanders wanted Hurricanes over P-40s, assuming they actually had a choice.
Aircraft deliveries in China/Burma area was rather sketchy in 1942/43, What was initial requested was often not what showed up. The First 600 P-40Ks were ordered Oct 1941 for China (pre Pearl Harbor), China did not get any P-40Ks until June of 1943 and then only a few. At least one P-40K-5 wasn't handed over to China until Dec 28th 1945.
I'm curious what makes you think that. P-40s were probably the best turning (active) US fighter, and were definitely thought of as 'turn fighters'. In fact several pilots noted that P-40s could out turn A6Ms at higher speeds. They routinely out-turned Bf 109s and MC 202s as a standard tactic in the Middle East.
One final issue with this theory is that, within the AVG, former AVG / 23rd Fighter Group, and the 51st FG and later on, the 80th, they all had multiple aircraft types engaged with the enemy. The 23rd FG had P-40s, P-43 Lancers, P-66 Vanguards, P-51A, P-38F/G/H, and later on, P-51B, C and D. 51st FG had the P-51A and P-38s IIRC, 80th FG just had the P-40s and later P-51s.
Only the Merlin P-51s and the P-40s had consistently good outcomes against the Ki-43, Ki-44 and other Japanese fighters in China / Burma / India. The P-51A, the P-43, P-66, and even the P-38s in this Theater did not do as well... in spite of the fact that they clearly did use the Hit and Run tactic and it was USAAF policy.
A handful of P-43s were used for recon, as their turbocharger gave them excellent high altitude performance to avoid interception.How many air combats were there involving US-flown P-43s and P-66s? The P-43 was withdrawn from combat roles in Oct 1942. The only unit I can find that flew the P-66 was the 74th Fighter Squadron but accounts are suitably vague about its operational employment (if there was any of note). Given that neither the P-43 nor the P-66 had armour plate or self-sealing fuel tanks, I'd be surprised if either type was used by the USAAF for anything other than training or as hacks. From what I can see, only the CAF flew the P-43 and P-66 operationally.
A handful of P-43s were used for recon, as their turbocharger gave them excellent high altitude performance to avoid interception.
Plenty of anecdotes on this, but I find the report from the Air Corps Material Division succinct:
P-40E vs. Hurricane:
The Hurricane can easily turn inside the P-40E and was able to continue turning after the P-40E had stalled. With the P-40E on the tail of the Hurricane it was possible for the Hurricane to tighten the circle and within 720° be in shooting position again. The P-40E squashes on turns, whereas the Hurricane does not.
This would have been the Hurricane II that was sent over to the US.
Full report over at: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/PHQ-M-19-1307-A.pdf
**EDIT: I think I misunderstood your response. When I said 'no hope' I meant against the Ki-43. Whereas the Hurricanes -- being markedly better in this regard overall (though not vs. Japanese types) -- hung on to this method of fighting far too long.
Yep...but recon P-43s aren't going to score any kills against Japanese aircraft. The context of the discussion is about the relative combat performances of different aircraft used against the IJAAF, specifically the Ki-43. Personally, I quite like both the P-43 and P-66 but, then again, I'm an odd duck who swims against the flow.
They were not just used for recon, that's what I used to think to. But 23rd FG had some and used them in interceptions of raids and other actions, and they took losses several times in engagements with Ki-43s. I posted several of these in the recent Ki-43 thread.