Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?

[Schweik]

VS

P-40 evaluation should also include P-40L which was nearly identical to the P-40F, it just had some of the field stripping done in the factory. The RAF designated P-40F/L as Kittyhawk II and IIa respectively.

So which of the two famous aircraft was most useful to the war effort?

• Which fighter shot down more enemy aircraft? -US P-40 units which amounted to 5 Fighter Groups or 15 squadrons, claimed 592 air- to -air victories over enemy aircraft, mostly fighters in North Africa and the Mediterranean Theater from summer 1942 until fall 1944. A few of these were P-40K but almost all were P-40F or L. The P-40 F/L was also used by two RAF squadrons (260 RAF and 450 RAAF) and by at least one unit in the Solomon Islands in the Pacific. I don't know how many victories the latter claimed.
  
  
• How many of each type were lost on operations?
• Which did pilots prefer?
• Which did the enemy fear more?
• Which of the two destroyed the most enemy ground targets?
• Which of the two had the most impact on any battles or operations? Where were the Typhoons used, did they send any to the Pacific or CBI?
• Which of the two had better performance ? I think clearly the Typhoon with a top speed of 408 mph vs 370 for the P-40F
• Which was the most maneuverable? Which gave their pilots the best chance in combat vs. enemy aircraft they faced?
• Which which was most reliable? I think that answer is obvious (the P-40F). Typhoons were still having major teething problems until the end of 1942.

 

[Augsburg Eagle]

Is it meaningfull to compare a ground attacker (Typhoon) and a fighter (P-40)? They have different operational profiles.

 

[Schweik]

Is it meaningfull to compare a ground attacker (Typhoon) and a fighter (P-40)? They have different operational profiles.

Weren't they both fighters that did a lot of ground attack?

I think it's admissible to include any merits that either aircraft had, in air to air or ground attack or things like neutralizing V-1s which I think Typhoons did right? Or was that just Tempests?

I know Typhoons were used for a while to counter (or try to counter) Fw 190s.

 

[wuzak]

Typhoons were fighters that were later used as fighter-bombers.

Originally the Typhoon (and Tornado) were supposed to supersede the Hurricane and Spitfire.

In terms of performance, the Typhoon is superior to the P-40F in most respects.

It climbed better at lower to medium altitudes.
Was faster at all heights.
It had better firepower.
It had better load carrying capability.

On the downside, its ceiling was slightly lower and high altitude climb was less. The engine was unreliable at the start, but that was improved over time.
It had some structural problems, but a fix was found and implemented for them.

You mentioned the Fw 190 Jabos. The Typhoon could track them down - the P-40F, probably not.
The Typhoon could catch and destroy V-1s. P-40F probably not.
The Typhoon was also used to escort Mosquito FBs on occasion. I doubt the P-40F could have kept up.

Your first question is moot. Many more P-40s were built (though not P-40Fs), they served in more theatres over a longer period and had more opportunity for aerial combat.

 

[Schweik]

Typhoons were fighters that were later used as fighter-bombers.

Originally the Typhoon (and Tornado) were supposed to supersede the Hurricane and Spitfire.

In terms of performance, the Typhoon is superior to the P-40F in most respects.

It climbed better at lower to medium altitudes.
Was faster at all heights.
It had better firepower.
It had better load carrying capability.

I would agree with this. Did the Typhoon have any problems in a dive or with terminal dive speed? How maneuverable was it?

On the downside, its ceiling was slightly lower and high altitude climb was less. The engine was unreliable at the start, but that was improved over time.
It had some structural problems, but a fix was found and implemented for them.

By Dec 1942 right?

You mentioned the Fw 190 Jabos. The Typhoon could track them down - the P-40F, probably not.

Apparently they did, or at least, they claimed quite a few shot down mostly over Italy, and notably during the Battle of Anzio in 1944. I think it would be interesting to compare numbers, we can also check for viability of claims as Christopher Shores MAW Volume IV is out which covers these battles.

The Typhoon could catch and destroy V-1s. P-40F probably not.

I would assume this is correct - so far as I know no P-40 pilot ever tried but they were probably not fast enough.

The Typhoon was also used to escort Mosquito FBs on occasion. I doubt the P-40F could have kept up.

Agree with that too! There were some mosquitoes operating in the Med at the same times but I don't believe they needed an escort and a P-40 would be too slow anyway and also lack the range I think.

Your first question is moot. Many more P-40s were built (though not P-40Fs), they served in more theatres over a longer period and had more opportunity for aerial combat.

This is why this analysis is specifically between the P40 F and L (Merlin engined P-40s) vs. the Typhoon since these were the main variants used by the USAAF against the same (i.e. German - in the Med) opponents as the Typhoon. Again, not sure if Typhoons were used in the Pacific or CBI. They built 3,300 Typhoons and 2,000 of the Merlin Engined P-40s (1300 P-40F and 700 P-40L), both Typhoon and P-40F were active from 1941, the Typhoon through 1945, P-40F phased out by October 1944 but it's close... so I think it's a reasonable comparison.

S

 

[pbehn]

The Typhoon never really replaced the Spitfire because of the improvements in the Merlin and problems getting it into service. By 1944 the Typhoon itself was replaced as the front line fighter from Hawkers by the Tempest, By 1944 the Typhoon was aa ground attack A/C carrying 370Kg of additional armour. As a fighter I would say it was better than the P-40 at all but high altitude but as an operational aircraft it was a bit of a nightmare.

 

[Schweik]

So any idea how many air-to-air victory claims were made by Typhoon pilots?

Were Typhoons ever deployed against the Japanese?

When was all the armor added?

S

 

[Greyman]

From a performance perspective I think the Typhoon was better in every way except for roll-rate and turning ability.

 

[Schweik]

From a performance perspective I think the Typhoon was better in every way except for roll-rate and turning ability.

Those would seem to be rather important factors...

 

[MIflyer]

Both the Typhoon and the P-40 were built as air superiority fighters and both pretty much could not hack it and were relegated to mostly ground attack. Both had only single stage superchargers and in Europe that was unacceptable, especially after 1941, not only due to high altitude performance but also due simply the need to pack enough horsepower under the hood.

The Typhoon was a better air superiority fighter than the P-40 for the time period it was in service but that did not mean it was nearly as good as the Spit IX, P-38, P-47, or P-51. It is difficult to compare the two because they are different generations. The P-40 is a contemporary of the Hurricane. The P-40F and P-40L were out of production before the Typhoon became operational in large numbers. P-40F's and L's were re-engined with V-1710's when the original Merlins wore out and there were no replacements available.

The Typhoon was not a very popular aircraft with its pilots. The poor reliability of the engine was a big factor but not the only one. I recently read a book by a Spitfire pilot who was posted to ferry airplanes within Great Britain because of some problems he had while flying the Spitfire. He liked ferrying Typhoons and the other pilots were all too happy to let him have all of them. When delivering a Typhoon to one unit he made a typical tight fighter style pattern and once on the ground was lectured that he should never do that with a Typhoon - bring it in on a long and slow final approach. On the other hand he said that when he flew Typhoons operationally they used the tight fighter pattern.

Aside from the engine problems the Typhoon had a tendency for the tail to break off in a dive; reinforcement helped but the problem never seemed to go away entirely. The Typhoon vibrated badly; they found that for some reason the 4 blade prop helped that, which is the reason for the change. The Typhoon was terrible at ditching, diving under right away; pilots usually did not get out. When they were flying over the Channel to attack targets before D-Day the pilots were every mindful that if the engine started acting up or took combat damage they might well be better off to take their chances evading the Germans in France than risking a Channel crossing.

The author of the book described having an engine problem on a mission over France and trying to get home. The engine quit over the Channel and since he was expecting it he very carefully came down and dragged the tail first to slow down. But the problem was not that big airscoop but the wing shape and it dove under once the wing hit; he narrowly escaped and spent the night out there, was rescued in the morning.

Of course, the Typhoon plus anti-armor rocket was a great combination, although losses were severe, since the aircraft had to fly a nice straight approach to fire the rockets. However the RAF really had no other choice. The Spitfire was terrible fighter bomber and the Hurricane too low in performance. The Typhoon replaced the Whirlwind in a couple of RAF units and those pilots seemed to prefer the earlier aircraft, where they could cross the Channel with one turning and one burning if required with more confidence.

I think that all in all the RAF would have been much better off with the P-47 if it had been available in sufficient numbers - which it might have been if Curtiss had focused more on the P-47G and less on the P-40. In the CBI the RAF replaced the Hurricane with the P-47, not the Typhoon. Of course the P-40 pilots also would have been better off if they had been equipped with P-47's, too.

The Tempest seemed to have fixed all the Typhoon's faults, except maybe the engine, and if that quit at least you could ditch it and survive.

Today the P-40 is a popular warbird. I don't think anyone is flying any Typhoons.

 

[pbehn]

So any idea how many air-to-air victory claims were made by Typhoon pilots?

Were Typhoons ever deployed against the Japanese?

When was all the armor added?

S

I don't know how many claims (such things aren't my bag) by catching Jabo raiders and turning those into a very dangerous activity for the LW it made a significant effect. Armour was fitted below and around the pilot and cooling system prior to D-Day as I understand it. Apart from N Europe I believe some were sent to the middle east but the Sabre engine was a complicated beast to operate on the other side of the world, the Typhoon was basically out of service as soon as the war ended.

 

[Schweik]

Both the Typhoon and the P-40 were built as air superiority fighters and both pretty much could not hack it and were relegated to mostly ground attack. Both had only single stage superchargers and in Europe that was unacceptable, especially after 1941, not only due to high altitude performance but also due simply the need to pack enough horsepower under the hood.

The Typhoon was a better air superiority fighter than the P-40 for the time period it was in service but that did not mean it was nearly as good as the Spit IX, P-38, P-47, or P-51. It is difficult to compare the two because they are different generations. The P-40 is a contemporary of the Hurricane. The P-40F and P-40L were out of production before the Typhoon became operational in large numbers. P-40F's and L's were re-engined with V-1710's when the original Merlins wore out and there were no replacements available.

No offense but just about everything you said about the P-40 is wrong, they were quite successful as fighters in Theaters outside of NW Europe as measured for example by enemy aircraft shot down, or battles won. They just weren't good at high altitude. The last significant combat mission flown by Merlin engined P-40Ls that I know of was in September 1944.

One of the things that I'd really like to know is if the Typhoon really was a better air superiority fighter than a P-40F or L, I'd like to see evidence other than raw performance figures, like how many enemy aircraft were destroyed by Typhoon pilots. as for example high top speed with poor roll and turn characteristics isn't necessarily a recipe for success. The P-40 was not, incidentally, a contemporary of the Hurricane in terms of design, the Hurricane is an older design and peaked a bit earlier too, though all three aircraft, Hurricane, Typhoon and P-40 served during overlapping periods.

The Typhoon was not a very popular aircraft with its pilots. The poor reliability of the engine was a big factor but not the only one. I recently read a book by a Spitfire pilot who was posted to ferry airplanes within Great Britain because of some problems he had while flying the Spitfire. He liked ferrying Typhoons and the other pilots were all too happy to let him have all of them. When delivering a Typhoon to one unit he made a typical tight fighter style pattern and once on the ground was lectured that he should never do that with a Typhoon - bring it in on a long and slow final approach. On the other hand he said that when he flew Typhoons operationally they used the tight fighter pattern.

Aside from the engine problems the Typhoon had a tendency for the tail to break off in a dive; reinforcement helped but the problem never seemed to go away entirely. The Typhoon vibrated badly; they found that for some reason the 4 blade prop helped that, which is the reason for the change. The Typhoon was terrible at ditching, diving under right away; pilots usually did not get out. When they were flying over the Channel to attack targets before D-Day the pilots were every mindful that if the engine started acting up or took combat damage they might well be better off to take their chances evading the Germans in France than risking a Channel crossing.

The author of the book described having an engine problem on a mission over France and trying to get home. The engine quit over the Channel and since he was expecting it he very carefully came down and dragged the tail first to slow down. But the problem was not that big airscoop but the wing shape and it dove under once the wing hit; he narrowly escaped and spent the night out there, was rescued in the morning.

Of course, the Typhoon plus anti-armor rocket was a great combination, although losses were severe, since the aircraft had to fly a nice straight approach to fire the rockets. However the RAF really had no other choice. The Spitfire was terrible fighter bomber and the Hurricane too low in performance. The Typhoon replaced the Whirlwind in a couple of RAF units and those pilots seemed to prefer the earlier aircraft, where they could cross the Channel with one turning and one burning if required with more confidence.

Whirlwind seems to have been a really neat plane. Typhoon sounds more and more like a pilots nightmare the more I read about it.

I think that all in all the RAF would have been much better off with the P-47 if it had been available in sufficient numbers - which it might have been if Curtiss had focused more on the P-47G and less on the P-40. In the CBI the RAF replaced the Hurricane with the P-47, not the Typhoon. Of course the P-40 pilots also would have been better off if they had been equipped with P-47's, too.

Quite a few of them were in the Med, though the loss rate did not decline and they scored significantly fewer combat victories after they converted to P-47s. In the CBI the P-40 had a very good record, with 973 victories, P-40 pilots claimed more enemy aircraft in the CBI than any other American type (345 for all types of Mustangs, 157 for P-38s and 16 for P-47s) and I'd be very surprised and interested to learn that any RAF or Commonwealth type did better. I'd love to see any Commonwealth numbers from the Theater.

The Tempest seemed to have fixed all the Typhoon's faults, except maybe the engine, and if that quit at least you could ditch it and survive.

Today the P-40 is a popular warbird. I don't think anyone is flying any Typhoons.

A few Tempests and Sea Furies still around though I think. Thanks for the post even though we disagree on a few things.

S

 

[wuzak]

The Tempest seemed to have fixed all the Typhoon's faults, except maybe the engine, and if that quit at least you could ditch it and survive.

How did hey do that?

The main problem for ditching was the prominent chin radiator, which was common to the Typhoon and the Tempest V. The Tempest II had the Centaurus radial, but it was also later and saw less WW2 service.

 

[wuzak]

One of the things that I'd really like to know is if the Typhoon really was a better air superiority fighter than a P-40F or L, I'd like to see evidence other than raw performance figures, like how many enemy aircraft were destroyed by Typhoon pilots. as for example high top speed with poor roll and turn characteristics isn't necessarily a recipe for success. The P-40 was not, incidentally, a contemporary of the Hurricane in terms of design, the Hurricane is an older design and peaked a bit earlier too, though all three aircraft, Hurricane, Typhoon and P-40 served during overlapping periods.

You seem fixated on aerial victories.

When that is, largely, a measure of opportunity.

What were the victories per sortie?
How many enemy encounters per sortie?

 

[Schweik]

You seem fixated on aerial victories.

When that is, largely, a measure of opportunity.

What were the victories per sortie?
How many enemy encounters per sortie?

Good questions! Losses per sortie (and by what cause) are also great to know.

It probably starts with the raw victory and / or loss numbers, but I'd be glad to know any of the above for the Typhoon. I already have some idea for the P-40F.

I'd be glad to see any commonwealth numbers on victory claims, losses, sortie rates etc.

 

[Shortround6]

Somebody here once posted the number (or tons) of bombs dropped by Typhoons and Spitfires in the British 2nd tactical air force , the number of rockets fired, trains, trucks tanks etc and enemy aircraft claimed for a two month period after D-day.

However what was not listed (if memory serves and it may not) was the actual number of aircraft of each type or number of squadrons.
Numbers were both not a big surprise (Typhoons fired a lot more rockets and dropped by far a greater tonnage of bombs) and yet one number was, unless you thought about it for a while.
Typhoons in this group of squadrons for these two months claimed 2 German aircraft. Spitfires claimed either 60 something or 80 something if I remember right, ( and I may not )

Now I believe, but could well be wrong, that in addition to dropping bombs on German targets the Spitfires of the 2nd TAF were often tasked with flying top cover (escort) for the Typhoons
which means that even trying to compare planes flying in the same air force (tactical air force not national air force) in the same area of operations in the same time period could wind up with a vast discrepancy in scores simply due to the actual mission tasks/profiles being flown that lead to a rather different rate of engagement

That or you have to believe the Typhoon was a really terrible fighter even at low level .

Perhaps the Spitfires were that good in keeping the Luftwaffe aircraft away from the Bombphoons.

 

[Schweik]

Well, presumably they flew more than just ground attack missions with them from 1941-1945 so maybe we'll get some variety in there.

RAF used P-40s in the Med as their main air superiority fighter from 1941 until August of 1942, and then as both fighters and fighter bombers until about April 1943, after which RAF Kittyhawks were used almost exclusively as 'kittybombers' very much the same way as you describe above (with Spitfire cover, and including the rockets, even) in right up to 1945.

USAAF used five fighter groups of P-40F and Ls as both fighters and fighter bombers, with some units more one than the other (325th FG flying mostly bomber escort and fighter sweeps, 324th flying mostly fighter-bomber sorties), until Summer 1943, after which two of the best groups (325th and 57th FG) switched to P-47s, while 3 more groups soldiered on with P-40s well into 1944, flying both types of missions. The last group to get into a significant dogfight over Italy was in Sept 1944, after which all the remaining P-40 units had switched to P-47s or P-51s (or first one then the other like the 325th did).

In the Pacific P-40s were mostly used for air cover and escort but also in fighter sweeps and fighter-bomber missions by both US and Commonwealth (Australian and New Zealand) units into late 1943, by which time the US units switched over to P-38s or P-51s and the ANZAC units switched over to Spitfires and Corsairs. But by then most of the air to air combat was done for land based fighters in those areas.

In the CBI P-40s were still being used successfully from early 1942 right up to 1945. IJA didn't upgrade their aircraft very quickly (they were still making Ki-43s right up to the end of the war) and their training wasn't as good as the IJN which may account for that.

The Soviets used P-40s for VVS (offensive frontal aviation) units until mid 1943 and then started switching them over to mostly PVO (Air Defense) and maritime patrol duties over the Baltic.


What were they doing with Typhoons all that time before D-Day?

 

[DarrenW]

Any chance we could make this a poll?

 

[Milosh]

So any idea how many air-to-air victory claims were made by Typhoon pilots?

Were Typhoons ever deployed against the Japanese?

When was all the armor added?

S

The Typhoon made 250 claims, including 3 Me262s.

 

[wuzak]

What were they doing with Typhoons all that time before D-Day?

Hunting down Jabos, for one.

Escorting the odd low level Mosquito raid (like the Amiens Prison raid).

And they were doing rocket and bomb sorties over occupied Europe from October 1943.