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

[MycroftHolmes]

An aside but I think valid, is that the Russians were continually asking the allies for two types of aircraft the P39 and the Spitfire. They never asked for more P40's, they got them but didn't ask for them, in a similar manner they never asked for Valentine tanks, but got them by the thousand.

Are you sure about this? I understood that the Valentine was kept in production specifically because the Russians liked them so much and were constantly asking for more.

 

[Schweik]

Now you have changed the theatre AGAIN, this is becoming ridiculous, in air combat speed, rate of climb and firepower were decisive, after that sustained rate of turn and roll rate had some importance. There is one factor, it is so obvious I don't know how you can say any other it was speed, in level flight, in climb or dive, speed ruled and no one cared if an Me 262 was deficient in a turn or roll, no allied aircraft could make it turn or roll without mobbing it. Judging a plane on its kills makes no sense, in any such comparison a Sopwith Camel will prove better than an F-22 or F-35.

No, I didn't "change theatre AGAIN" you are not on the level here at all - and I agree DEFINITELY ridiculous! You said for "all fighters" rate of climb, combat speed and firepower were decisive, I pointed out one example among many where they were not. You didn't say decisive in one of these two Theaters. Give me a break.

And in that theater, let me ask you does anyone think that a P-51B is an all-around better fighter than a Spit IX? It's a lot faster! How about a P-47? Faster and heavier firepower. But better?

As for the Eindhoven raid, first of all no it's not "inadmissable" because of the date - just because you said something about 1943 doesn't mean that the whole discussion is confined to that year or later - both the Typhoon and the P-40F were active in Dec 1942 it's well within the operationally active period for both fighters. The only reason I posted it is because I happened to remember that story due to having read some articles about the Ventura a short while back.

Second of all, the only significance of that particular raid to this discussion is that there were fighters and they did shoot down some of the raiders. To quote directly from the article:

"German fighters had in fact gathered off the coast along the Bostons' route. Wing Commander Peter Dutton, the CO of 107 Squadron, was shot down 6 kilometers out from Katwijk aan Zee.[63] Two more from 107 were lost from fighter attacks over the water.[64] Another from 226 Squadron was lost off Scheveningen.[64] "

So there were fighters and therefore, enemy planes for Typhoons to go shoot down. Get it? It is of zero relevance how many were lost to flak or bird strikes vs. fighters. There were fighters there and they did damage.

If you are really insisting that Luftwaffe fighters didn't rise to the occasion during other raids I'll find more examples.

Finally, Mustangs weren't on the raid and it wasn't a Rhubarb, that was a separate example relating to another primary source document we had referred to several times in the thread already. capisce ?

 

[Schweik]

More examples:

Allied bombing of Rotterdam - Wikipedia

13 raids Aug 42 - May 44, this being typical

28 March 1943 24 Ventura bombers, escorted by fighters, bombed Rotterdam docks. At least six ships were hit and a fire was started in a dockside warehouse. No bombers were lost.[9]

 

[Shortround6]

Going back to this

The cost of two stage engines in terms of materials may seem negligable from a Western perspective but Soviet aircraft design emphasized the use of as few as possible metals and any strategic materials including aluminum (which is why so much of so many of their fighters were made of birch plywood). Two stage engine means two impellers, possibly a whole second supercharger, plus an intercooler. That also undoubtedly increases maintenance costs. These things mattered to the Soviets - they would have done it anyway if they thought they needed a lot of high altitude fighters, but they clearly did not. There was routinely a cloud ceiling at 5,000 feet or less, and all the fighting that mattered centered around the tanks and Tactical ground targets.

The Russians tried to put turbo chargers on just about every major aircraft engine they built (trainer engines excepted) with sometimes a new try on every different model (turbo M-100, tubo M-103, turbo M-105) for example Or turbo M-61, turbo M-62, turbo M-63. Yes, lack of materials doomed most of these experiments but the Russians were certainly interested in high altitude engines.
They had several problems, one was fuel, there is only so far you can go with 95-96 octane fuel. If you compress air 4-5 times even using two stages it gets very hot and very prone to detonate in the cylinders. If you want 44in of MAP at 25,000ft you have to compress the ambient air 4 times, well beyond the capabilities of any single stage compressor for most of WW II. So proper cooling is a must. Both of the intake charge (intercooler) and the engine. If you increase the temperature of the intake charge 100 degrees you also increase the peak cylinder temperature 100 degrees and the exhaust temperature 100 degrees. SInce the air at 25,000 is just under 1/2 as dense as the air at 4,000ft or 66% as dense as the air at 13,000ft you need bigger radiators and oil coolers to support the same power level. You can't slap a turbo on a low altitude airplane and expect it magically turn into a high altitude airplane with no other changes.
The Russians might have been able to reverse engineer the two stage mechanical supercharger on a Merlin, now what do you do with it? It solves the lack of high temperature alloys needed for the turbo but brings problems of it's own. The M-105 engine was on shaky ground as far as durability goes and the whole M-100 series was one upgrade after another to strengthen the basic Hispano engine (which failed it's initial trial test for the Russians in 1934) to get to the power levels it did get to. adding a supercharger that was going to take several hundred crankshaft horsepower to drive (Merlin 61 made 88% of the power at 23,500 ft high blower than it did at 11250ft in low blower at the same manifold pressure, A good part of the difference was the power needed to drive the superchargers in high gear. the aux supercharger in the P-63 could take several hundred hp to drive. If the basic engine will not survive that kind of power being made in the cylinders then there is little point in trying to put a two stage supercharger on it.

The Russians were very pragmatic and did concentrate on their most immediate problems, but they were still doing an awful lot of research as the war went on (and lets not forget that the M-106 and M-107 engines were both started before the Germans invaded).

The Germans also dropped the ball as far as having a large scale bombing program of areas even 3-400 miles behind the lines, for get the whole idea of bombing anything even near the Urals, that would have taken planes equivalent to the B-29.
This simplified things for the Russians, they designed and built prototype high altitude aircraft but didn't put them into production because the threat never became too great.

 

[Glider]

I don't mean the Pacific Theater, I'm talking about in the Med. To be clear.

Got it

See this is pretty typical of a lot of the posts in this thread and some others. Sometimes, if you have made up what you believe before you start reading, it affects your reading comprehension. I know very well what was in the post I linked because I researched it myself and I transcribed it to that post.

Got it

Of the 8 pilots I quoted in that thread, only 2 (TWO) only fought in the Pacific - Shilling and DeHaven. Of the other 6, Clive Caldwell, Nicky Barr, General Davis, Charlie Hall and Billy Drake fought in the Med. Caldwell also fought later in the Pacific as well but almost all of his 28 some odd victories were with the P-40 in the Middle East. Drake also fought in various other Theaters around Europe in Spitfires and Hurricanes and scored 13 of his 22 kills with the Kittyhawk.

Lets look at what they actually said:-

Shilling and DeHaven - Both Pacific and therefore irrelevant as we are talking Med (see your first comment)

Golodnikov said that the P-40 was just as good as the Bf 109 through THE END OF 1943. That is to say, until 1944. He also said and I quote: "the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf 109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better. " - Correct he did say that, and if you believe that the Tomahawk was equal to the Me109F I suggest you read the other volumes on the war in the Middle East and see what happened to the Tomahawk before the Spitfires arrived to give them some fighter cover. You also may want to try to comment on why the Russians never asked for additional P40's.

Clive Caldwell - It had almost no vices, could take punishment ect. He didn't say it was better or as good as the 109 or 190. He didn't say it could equivalent performance

Nick Barr - It was a friend that could normally get you out of trouble. He also didn't say it was as good or better than the 190 or 109

General Davis - said If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P40's couldn't get them, but if the Germans did come down then the P40 was superior. In other words the initiative was with the Germans which is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Charlie Hall - Sure we liked them Most of us got home that flew them He also didn't say it was as good or better than the 190 or 109

Bob O'Neil - Also fought the Japanese so that's out

Billy Drake - Thought it was as good as anything they were likely to meet

So to sum up
a) One of your quotes thought the P40 was as good as the Germans.
b) One thought the P40 was superior but admitted that the Germans had the initiative as to when to fight or not
None of the others expressed any statement as to the performance of the P40 against the German aircraft

I will just repeat your statement earlier
Sometimes, if you have made up what you believe before you start reading, it affects your reading comprehension
I totally agree, it does affect your comprehension

They used them and we do know the history of it. Spit V's were used in the Crimea where they got slaughtered and were pulled out of the line, Spit IXs were used exclusively for PVO (rear area air-defense) units. An important job, one which P-40s were eventually relegated to as well and to which the Spitfire was far better suited, but not front line duty.

Slaughtered? For a bunch of second hand MkV's they did very well and were far from slaughtered. They suffered unreliability which limited their performance but not slaughtered and as mentioned earlier the Russians were impressed sufficiently to ask for practically as many Spitfires as they could get.

What this has to do with a Mustang I have no idea. But I stand by what I said - the Mustang wouldn't have been good for the Russian Front.

This is simply priceless, If you cannot see the advantages the Mustang would bring to the Russian front, it says more than words could tell.

S [/QUOTE]

 

[Shortround6]

As for the Eindhoven raid, first of all no it's not "inadmissable" because of the date - just because you said something about 1943 doesn't mean that the whole discussion is confined to that year or later - both the Typhoon and the P-40F were active in Dec 1942 it's well within the operationally active period for both fighters.............................................

So there were fighters and therefore, enemy planes for Typhoons to go shoot down. Get it? It is of zero relevance how many were lost to flak or bird strikes vs. fighters. There were fighters there and they did damage.

We seem to splitting hairs here. You seem to think the Typhoon should have been doing hunter/killer mission looking for enemy fighters over occupied NW Europe in 1942/43. A Policy/tactic that had failed miserably in 1941/42 using Spitfires. Changing the type of fighter used was unlikely to bring about much change in the viability of the tactic.
A good part of the losses suffered on these cross channel missions were from flak, The German fighters did a fair share. But the Germans were NOT going to send up fighters to fight British fighters which were of little threat to the Germans. The British did have to use bombers as "bait" something like the B-17s and B-24s were used as "bait" in early 1944.

It took awhile to figure out how much bait to use and what kind, the planes (and pilots/crew) had to have a fair chance of survival and not be on suicide missions but pose enough of a threat that the germans would commit an interceptor force to discourage future raids even if they didn't stop the the present one. Shooting down bombers on the way home means you still lost this fight, it does mean the enemy has less assets for the next fight).

The Germans were doing little or nothing in the way of "standing patrols" and would only come up when presented with a viable target. A pair of fighters zipping along at 300mph plus at 100 ft up is not really a viable target but it is a whole lot more tempting that 2 or 3 squadrons coming over at low level. Germans could just sit on the ground, let the flak and inevitable accidents/operational losses take care of things while saving their own fighters/pilots/fuel for either an easier target or a more valuable one (twin engine multi seat bombers).

The first Typhoon squadron went into service in late 1941 but the two squadrons involved spent months just getting the Typhoon up to the standard needed for combat operations and still didn't quite make it before the Typhoon was committed to combat operations. the first Typhoon wing came into being in the summer of 1942. It took until Dec of 1942 for the British to get 12 squadrons in service. BTW the tail falling off problem had been pretty much cured by the end of 1942. Bracket that held the elevator balance counter weight would break and the fluttering elevator would overload the rear fuselage.

The British figured, rightly or wrongly, that the Typhoon should take over from the Hurricane and Whirlwind squadrons that had been part of the "bait' in some of these operations
(fighters going by and sometimes strafing is one thing. 250 and 500lb bombs being dropped is another) and more and more of the Typhoon squadrons were switched (or formed up) to perform that role and not the anti-fighter role you invision.
The Typhoon's air superiority role faded considerably when the Spitfire went from the MK V to the MK IX.

 

[Schweik]

Got it

First of all, you need to figure out how to use quote tags, it's not that hard. [ ] brackets with the word quote inside at the beginning of your post, [/ ] brackets with a slash, followed by the word quote, at the end of the text you want to quote.

Lets look at what they actually said:-
Shilling and DeHaven - Both Pacific and therefore irrelevant as we are talking Med (see your first comment)

Irrelevant to this specific discussion perhaps - I was helpfully linking a post from another thread which referred to P-40s in general. You made a mistake in counting the number of pilots, which you didn't acknowledge by the way, and you falsely insinuated that most of the pilots who I quoted that liked the P-40 only used it against Japanese pilots.

Correct he did say that, and if you believe that the Tomahawk was equal to the Me109F I suggest you read the other volumes on the war in the Middle East and see what happened to the Tomahawk before the Spitfires arrived to give them some fighter cover. You also may want to try to comment on why the Russians never asked for additional P40's.

Again no acknowledgement that you read it wrong. If I hadn't corrected you that would have stood here right?

Actually Tomahawks did pretty well against Bf 109Fs. This is directly from Shores earlier volumes (MAW Volume 1) page 329

"On November 22, 1941 there was a significant engagement in which the Tomahawk was put to a hard test by the Bf 109F. At 1540 nine Tomahawks of No. 112 Squadron RAF were joined by thirteen Tomahawks of No. 3 Squadron RAAF for an offensive sweep over the Tobruk-El Adem area[7]. At roughly 1600 hours they were intercepted near Bir Hacheim by 20 Bf 109Fs attacking from 3,000 feet above [8]. During the subsequent hour long engagement, which took place near two German airfields, JG 27 fighters landed and refueled to rejoin the fight. In the melee DAF fighters claimed three Bf 109s shot down and four "probables", while JG 27 claimed 11 P-40s [9]. The actual losses were 6 Bf 109F-4s and 7 Tomahawk IIbs shot down and 1 badly damaged (the aircraft of future RAAF Ace Bobby Gibbes) [10]. In the aftermath of the bloody fight both sides were shaken. The Germans believed they had come out ahead but felt the losses were unacceptable , and therefore made the decision not to dogfight the Tomahawk with the Bf 109F in the future [11], and instead to rely on 'boom and zoom' tactics[12], which while effective, imposed certain Tactical limitations. "

This incident, incidentally, started with the Bf 109s having a major advantage (starting 3000 feet above) and with additional fresh fighters joining the affray from several friendly airbases. For the Russians the situation was different. 9 months out of the year in Russia (on average) there is a heavy cloud ceiling at 5 - 6,000 feet over the steppe. Therefore much harder for high flying Bf 109s to attack from above. Soviet Tomahawks were able to operate entirely within their performance ceiling in other words and most of the fights were down low. In those kind of conditions, which Golodnikov and the several dozen other Soviet P-40 Aces fought in, Tomahawks may have had an edge. I don't know for sure because there isn't enough data. I wouldn't form an opinion just on the basis of one pilots testimony, but I also wouldn't utterly dismiss the (quite detailed and accurate so far as can be verified) personal accounts of a combat veteran and fighter ace, even if he is a naughty Russian. (Why Russian accounts are always dismissed by some people because "Commie" but German accounts are always believed despite Nazi I don't know...)

The only problem they had with P-40s were related to maintenance, and wearing out engines for which they lacked replacements. Though those were considerable.

Now keep in mind, I never asserted, and I probably never will, that the P-40 was superior to the 109 in general, I think they both had advantages and disadvantages, which one came out on top depended on the Theater. I just don't think it was necessarily generally inferior, and I do think they were close to parity in many, and the P-40 may have had the edge in some. So I don't doubt Golodnikov at his word, if anything he would be expected / under pressure to praise Soviet designs over Lend Lease, which he did generally as he put the Yak -1 over the P-40. He was talking about his Theater and his personal experience of it.

Clive Caldwell - It had almost no vices, could take punishment ect. He didn't say it was better or as good as the 109 or 190. He didn't say it could equivalent performance

You are making a fool of yourself. You do realize Caldwell scored 22 of his 28 victories with the P-40, and was a well known advocate of the fighter? If you really need me to I can produce many more quotes. It is a bit exhausting to go out and transcribe stuff only to be told black is white, and for people like you to refuse to admit when they make mistakes as you made several times in this discussion already.

Nick Barr - It was a friend that could normally get you out of trouble. He also didn't say it was as good or better than the 190 or 109

When he says "It was to me, a friend" he was referring to combat with Bf 109s. I don't believe you'll find too many similar comments from Hurricane pilots in the same Theater at the same time period.

General Davis - said If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P40's couldn't get them, but if the Germans did come down then the P40 was superior. In other words the initiative was with the Germans which is hardly a ringing endorsement.

The initiative was definitely with the Bf 109s in the sense that if they wanted to stay away, they could hang out at 28,000 feet. However if they wanted to play a role in the drama down at the tank battle in Tunisia or on the beach where Allied landing craft were deploying, or if they wanted to try to stop medium bombers from shellacking their troops with bombs, they had to come down to play. That is how and when these guys scored their victories.

Charlie Hall - Sure we liked them Most of us got home that flew them He also didn't say it was as good or better than the 190 or 109

He was up against Bf 109s and 190s almost exclusively. These were the victims of all of his victory claims with the P-40, which you can see here, two Fw 190s and 1 Bf 109

Billy Drake - Thought it was as good as anything they were likely to meet

All he met fighter wise were Bf 109s and MC 202s. For the record.

So to sum up
a) One of your quotes thought the P40 was as good as the Germans.
b) One thought the P40 was superior but admitted that the Germans had the initiative as to when to fight or not

You left out the Russian Golodnikov. But it's beside the point as all of them liked the P-40 and 6 of the 8 flew it against the Germans.

None of the others expressed any statement as to the performance of the P40 against the German aircraft

I will just repeat your statement earlier
Sometimes, if you have made up what you believe before you start reading, it affects your reading comprehension
I totally agree, it does affect your comprehension

..... and... right back at you. One or two of you guys seem to get easily embittered in these discussions and I think it affects your judgement, hopefully just temporarily. You might want to have an egg nog and relax.

Slaughtered? For a bunch of second hand MkV's they did very well and were far from slaughtered. They suffered unreliability which limited their performance but not slaughtered and as mentioned earlier the Russians were impressed sufficiently to ask for practically as many Spitfires as they could get.

Read about it yourself, they had a very disappointing record. Far worse than any Soviet P-40 unit I know of. They lost half of their fighters (14 out of 25) in one month (May 1943) and had to be taken out of the line. Part of the problem was with maintaining the engines though as was typical with Lend Lease fighters.

Spitfires over the Kuban

This is simply priceless, If you cannot see the advantages the Mustang would bring to the Russian front, it says more than words could tell.

I'll reply to another poster on that specific issue in the hopes of having a more civilized discussion about it!

S

 

[Schweik]

The Germans also dropped the ball as far as having a large scale bombing program of areas even 3-400 miles behind the lines, for get the whole idea of bombing anything even near the Urals, that would have taken planes equivalent to the B-29.
This simplified things for the Russians, they designed and built prototype high altitude aircraft but didn't put them into production because the threat never became too great.

To be fair to the Germans, longer ranged bomber raids with He 111s, Ju 88s etc. did some serious damage to Russian industrial capacity and logistics (like trains, marshalling yards etc.) in the early years of the war. Production of several aircraft were severely impacted, famously the original Yak 3 for example was basically cancelled due to a factory pulverized by German bombs. German bomber raids were quite deadly and efficient, they just lacked sufficient range once the factories were moved over the Urals. But German bomber raids are part of why they were moved (i.e. not just the threat of German tanks)

It also does emphasize that the need for the Spit IX was real and it's role was significant even if relegated to air defense.

But I think increasingly it was the threat of tanks that obsessed the commanders of both sides (*and filled their nightmares) and that is where they concentrated all their efforts - over the forward battlefield.

Of course the Soviets wanted the capability of high altitude fighters, and I believe they did eventually have a reasonably effective high altitude Yak 9. It just wasn't the main priority. In the long run the real need was probably at least in part due to the potential threat of Anglo-American heavy bombers and American long range fighters.

I think a Yak 9 pilot (or was it a Yak 3?) shot down a couple of P-51s over Berlin right?

S

 

[BiffF15]

To be fair to the Germans, longer ranged bomber raids with He 111s, Ju 88s etc. did some serious damage to Russian industrial capacity and logistics (like trains, marshalling yards etc.) in the early years of the war. Production of several aircraft were severely impacted, famously the original Yak 3 for example was basically cancelled due to a factory pulverized by German bombs. German bomber raids were quite deadly and efficient, they just lacked sufficient range once the factories were moved over the Urals. But German bomber raids are part of why they were moved (i.e. not just the threat of German tanks)

It also does emphasize that the need for the Spit IX was real and it's role was significant even if relegated to air defense.

But I think increasingly it was the threat of tanks that obsessed the commanders of both sides (*and filled their nightmares) and that is where they concentrated all their efforts - over the forward battlefield.

Of course the Soviets wanted the capability of high altitude fighters, and I believe they did eventually have a reasonably effective high altitude Yak 9. It just wasn't the main priority. In the long run the real need was probably at least in part due to the potential threat of Anglo-American heavy bombers and American long range fighters.

I think a Yak 9 pilot (or was it a Yak 3?) shot down a couple of P-51s over Berlin right?

S

Schweik,

Earlier you mentioned a Spit IX and questioned was it or a Mustang / P47 better. The answer is it depends. There is a reason that Mustangs were prowling over Berlin, and it's because they could. The P47 wasn't as leggy but could go surprisingly far. The Spit, like the Fw190 and Me109, the Mig21, Mig29, are all point defense fighters meant to protect the home plate and not escort offensive AirPower deep into your enemies homelands.

The Spit is a great plane, far more maneuverable than the P51 P47. It's all about strengths and weaknesses compared to the task at hand. Again, which is better "depends on what you want to do"!

Also you mentioned you don't like being lectured. Look at the number and size of your posts. It looks like you are doing more "lecturing" than any others.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Schweik]

Schweik,

Earlier you mentioned a Spit IX and questioned was it or a Mustang / P47 better. The answer is it depends. There is a reason that Mustangs were prowling over Berlin, and it's because they could. The P47 wasn't as leggy but could go surprisingly far. The Spit, like the Fw190 and Me109, the Mig21, Mig29, are all point defense fighters meant to protect the home plate and not escort offensive AirPower deep into your enemies homelands.

The Spit is a great plane, far more maneuverable than the P51 P47. It's all about strengths and weaknesses compared to the task at hand. Again, which is better "depends on what you want to do"!

This is essentially exactly what I was saying about P-40s (see two posts above this one), and other planes like the various Russian fighters, Japanese fighters, Italian fighters and so on. Relevant to the specific issue of P51 and P47 vs Spit IX, I was jut pointing out that fastest and most guns doesn't always mean bestest, which had been previously asserted. Originally I pointed out the A6M and Ki 43 for the early part of WW2, but I was told that was inadmissible (and dishonest of me to mention it) because it's irrelevant to the thread title.

Also you mentioned you don't like being lectured. Look at the number and size of your posts. It looks like you are doing more "lecturing" than any others.

Cheers,
Biff

I didn't say I didn't like being lectured - I pointed it out one user, Shortround had done a lecture (I think I specifically said dissertation). I specifically said "Listen, I'm perfectly happy to read a long dissertation about the ballistic properties of different aircraft ordinance, it's exactly the kind of thing I come to this board for. "

And I meant it! It was a very interesting dissertation on cannon and heavy machine gun ballistics. It was also slightly at right angles to the actual discussion and the crowing about what how it pwned my argument about two fighters was misplaced.

I have posted a lot in this thread because every time I post anything from about page 5 there are about 3 guys replying and accusing me of either lying or making huge mistakes, (while themselves making numerous careless mistakes, see above) and because I seem to be the only active poster here with a library of sources available on the P-40 to correct the record on it, as I've done some research on that fighter. I do not however seem to be the only poster in the Thread who recognizes the merits of the P-40.

When I have tried to write short posts in an attempt at brevity, any ("yes but") detail I didn't specifically address has been pounced on by those same 3 guys as if I made some huge mistake (see above) so I have to write each post with every single clause and caveat like a legal contract. Obviously some people are triggered by any challenge to subjects they feel they personally own, so I can't claim I didn't expect this, but I have tried to remain somewhat collegial and give credit where it is due throughout the conversation in spite of repeated accusations of dishonesty etc. This is just kind of how it goes when you challenge the conventional wisdom on anything in a place with a lot of knowledgeable people. Some people who are knowledgeable are also opinionated and can be resistant to new information.

I promise though this is my last thread on the p-40 for a while. I may add some combat records to the P-40 vs. 109 thread since a new source came out (MAW Volume IV) but this is the last new thread on the subject for a while.

I may start some on some other planes though

 

[Schweik]

Pray tell, why is that so? Too fast?

Three reasons:

1. Too vulnerable to ground fire
2. Too difficult to maintain (they seemed to have trouble with merlin engines in forward deployments)
3. Insufficiently maneuverable at low altitude

Mainly 3 - they preferred small, highly agile fighters that could out-turn Bf 109s and performed well down low. That is why they liked the P-39 so much. P-51 was a great long range escort fighter but not, IMO, ideal for nap of the earth dogfighting of the type faced on the Russian Front.

 

[Shortround6]

Then you don't dog fight.

You boom and zoom although at low angles. The Mustang is faster than the 190 (10-20mph easy) and climbs several hundred fps faster at sea level and perhaps 500fps faster at 5000ft?
This is for a P-51B using 60.5in vs a 190 using 1.58 Ata and not 1.42.
A P-51D can climb at 3600fps at any altitude between sea level and 5000ft using 67in of MAP while weighing 9760lbs. that would be with full main tanks and empty rear tank.

 

[michael rauls]

This is essentially exactly what I was saying about P-40s (see two posts above this one), and other planes like the various Russian fighters, Japanese fighters, Italian fighters and so on. Relevant to the specific issue of P51 and P47 vs Spit IX, I was jut pointing out that fastest and most guns doesn't always mean bestest, which had been previously asserted. Originally I pointed out the A6M and Ki 43 for the early part of WW2, but I was told that was inadmissible (and dishonest of me to mention it) because it's irrelevant to the thread title.



I didn't say I didn't like being lectured - I pointed it out one user, Shortround had done a lecture (I think I specifically said dissertation). I specifically said "Listen, I'm perfectly happy to read a long dissertation about the ballistic properties of different aircraft ordinance, it's exactly the kind of thing I come to this board for. "

And I meant it! It was a very interesting dissertation on cannon and heavy machine gun ballistics. It was also slightly at right angles to the actual discussion and the crowing about what how it pwned my argument about two fighters was misplaced.

I have posted a lot in this thread because every time I post anything from about page 5 there are about 3 guys replying and accusing me of either lying or making huge mistakes, (while themselves making numerous careless mistakes, see above) and because I seem to be the only active poster here with a library of sources available on the P-40 to correct the record on it, as I've done some research on that fighter. I do not however seem to be the only poster in the Thread who recognizes the merits of the P-40.

When I have tried to write short posts in an attempt at brevity, any ("yes but") detail I didn't specifically address has been pounced on by those same 3 guys as if I made some huge mistake (see above) so I have to write each post with every single clause and caveat like a legal contract. Obviously some people are triggered by any challenge to subjects they feel they personally own, so I can't claim I didn't expect this, but I have tried to remain somewhat collegial and give credit where it is due throughout the conversation in spite of repeated accusations of dishonesty etc. This is just kind of how it goes when you challenge the conventional wisdom on anything in a place with a lot of knowledgeable people. Some people who are knowledgeable are also opinionated and can be resistant to new information.

I promise though this is my last thread on the p-40 for a while. I may add some combat records to the P-40 vs. 109 thread since a new source came out (MAW Volume IV) but this is the last new thread on the subject for a while.

I may start some on some other planes though

Well I for one would like to see more threads on the p40. I think more than any other aircraft I can think of there is alot of false information out there about it.
Alot of things I had believed about it for years I have recently come to realize are not true at all. It is exactly the kind of a plane that needs to be discussed and debated over in my opinion.
By the way I would like to thank you and others here as well for dispelling alot of those myths.

 

[Shortround6]

as to the vulnerability of the P-51s cooling system
Yak 9

yeah, I can see how the Yak series has so much better placement of the radiator from combat damage. (sarcasm)
Yak 3 one of WW IIs finest fighters according to some people

Yep, much better placement of the radiator for resistance to combat damage than the p-51

If you want your fighters to shoot up/blow up stuff on the ground the six .50 cal guns are a whole lot better than one 20mm and 1-2 12.7mm machine guns. (Russian 20mm was sort of a middle of the road 20mm) and most Russian fighters were limited to a pair of 220lb bombs for bombing. forgetting the 1000lb bombs that leaves the P-51 with a pair of 500lb bombs (vs the P-39s one 500lb bomb) Yep poor P-51 just can't deliver the goods in ground attack can it?

everybody had problems with engine durability in forward deployments.

P-51 using 61 in of MAP (military power) may be 20-30mph faster than a P-39 using 57in of MAP (WEP)

 

[Schweik]

Then you don't dog fight.

You boom and zoom although at low angles. The Mustang is faster than the 190 (10-20mph easy) and climbs several hundred fps faster at sea level and perhaps 500fps faster at 5000ft?
This is for a P-51B using 60.5in vs a 190 using 1.58 Ata and not 1.42.
A P-51D can climb at 3600fps at any altitude between sea level and 5000ft using 67in of MAP while weighing 9760lbs. that would be with full main tanks and empty rear tank.

I think P-51s were very good against Fw 190s at low altitude, as the P-51 was both faster and probably turned better. And close to parity in roll too I would think. They were in a way the perfect antidote to the 190, (despite being much less heavily armed I might also note) but I think they were at somewhat of a disadvantage to Bf 109s down low.

Interestingly the Russians themselves didn't rate the Fw 190 that much of a problem, they seemed to feel the 109s or 'messers' as they called them were the real menace.

(Conversely the Germans didn't think much of the La 5 which the Russians felt was their best fighter for a long time)

 

[Schweik]

Well I for one would like to see more threads on the p40. I think more than any other aircraft I can think of there is alot of false information out there about it.
Alot of things I had believed about it for years I have recently come to realize are not true at all. It is exactly the kind of a plane that needs to be discussed and debated over in my opinion.
By the way I would like to thank you and others here as well for dispelling alot of those myths.

Thank you and you are more than welcome!

I'm not going to give up posting about that plane, there will be some operational data posted to Bf 109 vs P-40 soon. But I think it's good to allow time for certain things to sink in, and be checked and verified etc. And there are other interesting stories to tell about many other aircraft. I'm a little weary of this particular debate just because it seems to really push peoples buttons. A lot of very determined P-40 haters out there!

I think in general there was a consensus, at least in the English language, after WW2 about a lot of things and now that quite a bit more data has emerged, thanks in part to good forums like this and resources like WWIIperformance.org, pacificvictoryroll.com, ciel de gloire and lend-lease.ru etc., and books like Shores various series and Black Cross / Red star and so on, a new and perhaps more accurate picture is emerging about a lot of operations during the war and various specific planes.

Some which deserve revised appreciation or a closer look IMO include:

• The P-36 / Hawk 75 (early direct ancestor of the P-40) - gave excellent service to the French (including the Vichy) and the Finns in particular, kept in use albeit in a tertiary Theater by the British quite late in the war.
• The Beaufighter - it really shines in Shores MAW and did some real damage to the Axis in the Med
• The A-20 - in heavy use by the British, Americans and Russians far later than I had ever realized
• The Maryland and the Baltimore - critical to the English war effort in the early years of the war in the Med
• the Ki-43 - apparently Japans highest scoring fighter
• The SM.79 - a very old design by WW2 standards, and originally an airliner, but sunk a lot of ships!
• The Yak -1/7/9 series - generally very underestimated on the design and operational level, the story is of huge problems gradually overcome and eventual triumph.
• The La 5 - another underdog to champion story not well enough understood in the West
• The P-39 in Soviet service - still somewhat of a mystery and I'd like to plunge deeper into operations
• The Hudson / Ventura family - surprisingly useful in many Theaters
• The Reggianne fighter family (2000-2005) - never fully realized their potential but excellent design

And for me personally, the battle of the float planes, flying boats, seaplanes and long range patrol bombers way out to sea which I personally find fascinating. I'm particularly enamoured of the Sunderland, the He 115, the Rufe and the Z.506

 

[Shortround6]

Some of these discussions take left turns because some people want see things in black and white while in reality there were a considerable number of shades of grey.
The Mustang may not have been the best ground attack plane ever built (in fact there may have been a number that were much better) but it was "pretty good" and a whole lot better than some other planes.
It was more vulnerable to ground fire than some other planes, that doesn't mean the other planes were invulnerable. Sometimes you have to figure weight of ordnance delivered per plane lost vs number of planes lost per mission. If Plane A is delivering twice the ordinance of plane B per mission but only suffering 50% more losses it is the better plane for that mission because you have to use twice the number of plane B to get the job done and then you wind up loosing more planes/pilots.
Sometimes advantages of longer range/endurance are also overlooked. P-51s don't have to be based 20-30 miles behind the front lines to do ground support.
A P-51D can fly 450 miles (225miles radius) on 120 gallons at 293mph at 5,000ft while carrying a pair of 500lb bombs. That leaves (without rear tank) 60 gallons to warm up and take off, reserve and a brief period of combat. Adjust as you see fit. with the bombs gone it can do 323mph for about the same fuel burn.
Granted you might not get up to 4-6 missions per day but the P-51s do have a pretty good transit time.

I have said it before, Russian fighters really weren't all that good at ground support. That certainly doesn't mean they didn't do it. or that they didn't do a lot of it. It means you need a lot or Russian planes to get the same number of bullets/and weight of bombs to the battlefield as some western planes. If you have to use 2-3 times the number of planes to get the same target effect then you need that much more fuel and maintenance and have bigger logistics tail

 

[pbehn]

No, I didn't "change theatre AGAIN" you are not on the level here at all - and I agree DEFINITELY ridiculous! You said for "all fighters" rate of climb, combat speed and firepower were decisive, I pointed out one example among many where they were not. You didn't say decisive in one of these two Theaters. Give me a break.

And in that theater, let me ask you does anyone think that a P-51B is an all-around better fighter than a Spit IX? It's a lot faster! How about a P-47? Faster and heavier firepower. But better?

As for the Eindhoven raid, first of all no it's not "inadmissable" because of the date - just because you said something about 1943 doesn't mean that the whole discussion is confined to that year or later - both the Typhoon and the P-40F were active in Dec 1942 it's well within the operationally active period for both fighters. The only reason I posted it is because I happened to remember that story due to having read some articles about the Ventura a short while back.

Second of all, the only significance of that particular raid to this discussion is that there were fighters and they did shoot down some of the raiders. To quote directly from the article:

"German fighters had in fact gathered off the coast along the Bostons' route. Wing Commander Peter Dutton, the CO of 107 Squadron, was shot down 6 kilometers out from Katwijk aan Zee.[63] Two more from 107 were lost from fighter attacks over the water.[64] Another from 226 Squadron was lost off Scheveningen.[64] "

So there were fighters and therefore, enemy planes for Typhoons to go shoot down. Get it? It is of zero relevance how many were lost to flak or bird strikes vs. fighters. There were fighters there and they did damage.

If you are really insisting that Luftwaffe fighters didn't rise to the occasion during other raids I'll find more examples.

Finally, Mustangs weren't on the raid and it wasn't a Rhubarb, that was a separate example relating to another primary source document we had referred to several times in the thread already. capisce ?

From Barbarossa in 1941 through to the end of the war the events elsewhere dictated what the LW did, because it didn't have the resources to do everything. Dates are not academic, by the end of 1943 the Typhoon was mainly employed in the 2nd Tactical airforce. Neither the Typhoon nor the Spitfire put an end to Jabo raids on UK, the eastern front did. Your preference for rate of turn and dive over others qualities is purely because that's where you see an advantage for the P-40. Did anyone consider removing cannon on the Typhoon to improve roll rate? Was diving ability ever specified in an aeroplane or roll rate? What happened in the example you quoted? Did Japan win? Or were the Japanese eventually swept from the conflict by faster, more powerfully armed aircraft. Unless you are competitive on speed and climb you cannot force a conflict, they don't care how well you turn if you cant catch them, the ability to dive is a quality, but it takes you out of the conflict by handing a height advantage to your opponent.

 

[Schweik]

I have said it before, Russian fighters really weren't all that good at ground support. That certainly doesn't mean they didn't do it. or that they didn't do a lot of it. It means you need a lot or Russian planes to get the same number of bullets/and weight of bombs to the battlefield as some western planes. If you have to use 2-3 times the number of planes to get the same target effect then you need that much more fuel and maintenance and have bigger logistics tail

Yest but you are forgetting three things:

• The Russians had something the Anglo-American Allies didn't have, the very dangerous dedicated ground attack aircraft, the Il-2 Sutmovik, as well as the high speed dive bomber the Pe -2. (The Yanks did have the A-36 but it had a mixed record as we have discussed*).
• The Russians were also early pioneers of the mass deployment of the air to ground rocket.
• As previously mentioned by others in this thread, the Russians fielded variants of their main fighters with heavy cannon installed (23mm, 37mm, 45mm etc.) which could be used for attacking ground targets.

The Anglo-Americans both leaned heavily on their fighters to use as ground attack aircraft - with mixed results. P-38s and P-47s, Corsairs and Hellcats were all heavily armed and carried a lot of ordinance but were also big targets. P-51s as noted were vulnerable to ground fire.

You and I have debated the efficacy of Soviet rockets but in my opinion, as much as I like the Hurricane and the P-40, their large bomb load was all too often blowing up little more than sand or Jungle. Rockets are more dangerous and I suspect (though I can't prove) that an I-153 with 6 small rockets often did more damage than a big bad P-40 with 3 huge bombs.

I think I actually could prove that a single squadron of mid-war Il2s could do more damage with rockets, bombs and cannon than two or three squadrons of Anglo-American fighters from the same era. But it would take more effort in terms of cracking books and gogling stuff and transcribing than I really have time for. I think there is a pretty good Air Force study on this somewhere though which crunches a bunch of numbers from around the time of Kursk.



Anyway back to the P-51 thing - the emphasis on Soviet fighter design was on simplicity and ease of maintenance. All fluids, battery acid, hydraulics, oil, fuel, everything, had to be drained out of every aircraft every night in the winter. In the summer dusty conditions and very bad airfields had to be contended with. Yak and Mustang may have had similarly shaped cooling systems but I'm fairly confident the Yaks was simpler and easier to maintain... and maybe that vulnerability was part of why it was better to be based close to the front anyway instead of making long flights home. No doubt the radial engined La 5 was better in that respect which is maybe one of the reasons the Russians liked it so much.

The Mustang, good as it was, was not a simple plane and lacked the low level maneuverability that the Russians preferred.


*The Americans also had the medium bomber / heavy strafers and the Soviets did try to use these but found them too vulnerable for that role.

 

[Schweik]

Your preference for rate of turn and dive over others qualities is purely because that's where you see an advantage for the P-40.

Actually I don't have a preference for rate of turn and dive over speed or altitude performance or climb. I think all of them are useful and valuable qualities in a fighter. Roll too, especially as the war progressed became more and more important.

I'm not valuing P-40's strengths over other fighters, I'm just arguing that various combinations of strengths and weaknesses played out differently in different contexts in the war and one doesn't automatically trump the others. Catch my drift?

Did anyone consider removing cannon on the Typhoon to improve roll rate? Was diving ability ever specified in an aeroplane or roll rate? What happened in the example you quoted? Did Japan win? Or were the Japanese eventually swept from the conflict by faster, more powerfully armed aircraft. Unless you are competitive on speed and climb you cannot force a conflict, they don't care how well you turn if you cant catch them, the ability to dive is a quality, but it takes you out of the conflict by handing a height advantage to your opponent.

I agree ultimately speed is life for WW2 fighters, and there is a point below which if your speed has fallen beneath that of the enemy, you are toast. The P-40 was barely able to stay within that envelope probably to early 1944, after which I think it was eclipsed at any altitude. But by staying in the ballpark on speed, the other merits came into play.

The (to me insufficiently respected) A6M and Ki-43 fell behind in 1943 but were still competitive, and still shooting down Allied planes to the end of the War, though they had probably slipped too far behind in speed by 1944. I think the bigger problem the Japanese had though was really with pilot training and availability.