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

Shortround6 · Dec 17, 2018

Schweik said:
A lot of very determined P-40 haters out there!

There is a difference between hating it and swallowing a bunch of candy coated counter tropes about it.

Still looking for any evidence the "Bomber mafia" hated the P-40 in particular and/or went out of their way to downplay the P-40 or denigrate it's reputation.
Britain's "bomber Mafia" didn't want to spend money on the Hurricane and Spitfire in the 1930s, fortunately they were overruled.
The American bomber Mafia may not wanted to spend money on ANY "pursuit" planes not just the P-40. There may have been a few people in the Bomber mafia who wanted "escorts" but escorts at the state of technology in the late 30s and 1940/41 just weren't possible. At least not very good ones (BF 110 being one of the better ones and look how that turned out Other members of bomber mafia thought that since a practical (useful) escort was NOT possible then the bombers should have large amounts of defensive guns. And still didn't want to spend money on fighters.
It took 3 things to make the escort fighter (as used in the west, the Japanese Zero is an exception of sorts) possible,

It took the better aerodynamics of the P-51, it took the development of 100/130 fuel and it took the development of the efficient two stage supercharger.
Only one of those things existed in 1940, none had existed in 1939 and all would exist in 1942 so changing some generals minds about what was possible and what was not possible in regards to escort fighters also took a while.

I have no idea why the bomber Mafia would have singled out the P-40 for degrading out of the mix of US Army fighters.

I do like your list of aircraft

The Maryland and the Baltimore - critical to the English war effort in the early years of the war in the Med
and a major reason the British were so slow to replace the Blenheim, they thought they had the more modern light bomber covered with their American purchases.
the Ki-43 - apparently Japans highest scoring fighter
that will need careful examination, with about 3500 hundred out of the total 5900 ?) being built in 1944/45 that means the first 2400 shot down a lot of airplanes.
The SM.79 - a very old design by WW2 standards, and originally an airliner, but sunk a lot of ships!
The airliner story is a little iffy. First SM 79 was an 8 passenger plane built for the The MacRobertson Trophy air race of 1934 but finished too late. Race may have been for civilian planes only? The company did build the very similar SM 83 10 seat airliner.

Navalwarrior · Dec 17, 2018

Schweik said:
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

Resp:
It is very likely that the Russians followed the BoB (planted agents?) and believed the Spitfire defended Britain's skies. Were Russia's Allies holding back their best fighters? Russians were a paranoid bunch, so did they put pressure on England to supply their best?

Schweik · Dec 17, 2018

Shortround6 said:
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.

Look, I don't know what the operational history of the Typhoon was or what the big picture was in the Channel from 1942 - June 1944 except in broad strokes. I'm just doubting the rationale that there weren't any enemy aircraft to tangle with for 3 or 4 years.

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.

Ok this is helpful - so 12 squadrons of Typhoons operational by Dec 1942 with tail breaking problems resolved, vs. roughly the same number of P-40F/L at that time. By the summer of 1943 there were 20 squadrons of P-40Fs in the Med, 15 USAAF, 2 RAF, and 3 Free French. Do you know how many Typhoon squadrons were ultimately deployed? If they never had more than 12 that would help explain the discrepancy in victory claims.

The Typhoon's air superiority role faded considerably when the Spitfire went from the MK V to the MK IX.

Same for the P-40F/L though not entirely. Of the 20 squadrons I mentioned, basically 6 - the 325 and 57 FG - were flying mainly as escorts or fighter sweeps, RAF 260 sqn and RAAF 3 sqn and three squadrons of the 33rd FG were on mixed fighter / fighter-bomber missions (but probably more of the latter), and the others were mostly flying fighter bomber missions. The French I think were mostly flying maritime patrol though I'm not certain.

Interestingly after 3 RAAF sqn converted from Kittyhawk IIa (P-40L) to Kittyhawk III and IV (due to stocks of the former being used up) they went back to fighter bomber use. 260 sqn found some more Kittyhawk II somehow and switched back to those for a while after suffering heavier losses with Mk IIIs (probably P-40M though it's hard to be certain)

Schweik · Dec 17, 2018

Shortround6 said:
There is a difference between hating it and swallowing a bunch of candy coated counter tropes about it.

Though I dislike the appellation 'candy coated', I didn't say you were one of the haters. At least you bring the signal to noise ratio up with all your dissertations.

I'll plunge into the Bomber Mafia stuff later when I have more time, but I think it's as you alluded, most didn't want any fighters, but gradually came around to supporting the P-38 and then the P-47 as the need for escorts became more obvious, and eventually fell in love with the P-51 of course.

Shortround6 · Dec 17, 2018

Schweik said:
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.

Didn't forget anything.
I believe the IL-2 was so important to the Russians because their fighters were so underwhelming at ground attack.
the IL-2 could carry the ordnance load of several of the small Russian fighters. and use only one pilot doing it.

The Russians were an early pioneer of the air to ground rocket except the rockets were not very good, even the big one was small and inaccurate (the British 3in rocket wasn't much, if any better at accuracy. ) russian designation was the diameter of the whole rocket, British designation was the diameter of the rocket motor with a mcu larger heavier warhead.

The quantity of aircraft actually equipped with the heavy gun ( 45mm) was minuscule out of the total production.

Like 53 of the Yak 9Ks with 45mm gun built and they needed to be escorted by Yak 3s. how many available for any one battle or campaign, interesting to talk about or make models of but not really significant in the general scheme of things.

pbehn · Dec 17, 2018

The problem with this is that the Spitfire Mk IX was in squadron service in August 1942 and the Spitfire XII (single stage Griffon) was in Squadron service from Oct 1942, this is why the Typhoon was quickly developed as a ground attack A/C.

Navalwarrior · Dec 17, 2018

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

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.

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.

Golodnikov, the Russian, 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. "

Personally I'm not of the opinion that the P-40 was vastly better than a Bf 109F or G or a Typhoon for that matter. I think it was probably a little better in some ways and a little worse in others, but clearly quite competitive in a dogfight. The Typhoon had some real important value as a V-1 killer and Fw 190 chaser. But that is somewhat offset by all the development problems and the chronic issues like the fumes in the cockpit. Poor maneuverability not such a good thing either.

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.

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.

S

Resp:
The P-40 was there when other fighters weren't available. Chenault knew the P-40B/C's weaknesses, but was able to use it to good effect by training his pilot's to avoid certain manuvers, etc.. It was rugged, fairly easy to maintain and was not difficult to fly. It held up well in every theater of WWII, which is saying something for its design and construction. I hate to imagine us fighting WWII without it.

Shortround6 · Dec 17, 2018

Schweik said:
Ok this is helpful - so 12 squadrons of Typhoons operational by Dec 1942 with tail breaking problems resolved, vs. roughly the same number of P-40F/L at that time. By the summer of 1943 there were 20 squadrons of P-40Fs in the Med, 15 USAAF, 2 RAF, and 3 Free French. Do you know how many Typhoon squadrons were ultimately deployed?

The most TYphoon squadrons at any one time was 30

However many of the later Typhoons had hundreds of pounds (over 400lbs?) of armor added for protection against ground fire so it was not a question of drop the bombs/fire the rockets and go 109 hunting. It was get, in drop the ordnance,fire the cannon and then get back to England ( or bases on the continent once established)
British squadrons were specialised to the point where the rocket equipped squadrons ony fired rockets and the bomb dropping squadrons may not have had rocket rails even in local storage. The attack profiles/techniques were different for both weapons so the squadrons specialized. By 1944 there were plenty of Spitfires and other aircraft to give top cover.
The Typhoons in the later stages of the war weren't being used as fighter bombers as much as they were single engine tactical bombers.
Now when did they cross over??

Schweik · Dec 17, 2018

Shortround6 said:
Didn't forget anything.
I believe the IL-2 was so important to the Russians because their fighters were so underwhelming at ground attack.
the IL-2 could carry the ordnance load of several of the small Russian fighters. and use only one pilot doing it.

I think it was just a different strategy. Not better or worse in general, though maybe better for them. They liked having small nimble fighters, felt that ground attack planes needed to be heavily armored, and from a training perspective felt it was a very different mission to attack tanks or artillery vs. shooting down stukas and enemy fighters (though there were couple of Sturmovik aces I believe amazingly). I know from reading a lot of pilot accounts many Anglo American pilots really hated flying CAS and bombing missions. And many really weren't suited for them - P-47 did well in the role for example but it was really a high altitude fighter at home killing enemy planes at 30,000 ft, it was a great big flak target down at treetop level and vulnerable to enemy fighters there too.

The Russians could have used P-47s incidentally for air superiority or ground attack, as they were given some, but almost laughed at that prospect.

The Russians were an early pioneer of the air to ground rocket except the rockets were not very good, even the big one was small and inaccurate (the British 3in rocket wasn't much, if any better at accuracy. ) russian designation was the diameter of the whole rocket, British designation was the diameter of the rocket motor with a mcu larger heavier warhead.

The quantity of aircraft actually equipped with the heavy gun ( 45mm) was minuscule out of the total production.

Like 53 of the Yak 9Ks with 45mm gun built and they needed to be escorted by Yak 3s. how many available for any one battle or campaign, interesting to talk about or make models of but not really significant in the general scheme of things.

WW2 rockets were primitive, hard to aim etc. but they tended to damage actual targets a little more often than bombs, especially if the latter weren't dropped by dive bombers.

Milosh · Dec 17, 2018

Shortround6 said:
The most TYphoon squadrons at any one time was 30

30 is the total number of units that flew the Typhoon. 23 is the largest number of units operation at one time, Jan '44.

Schweik · Dec 17, 2018

Milosh said:
30 is the total number of units that flew the Typhoon. 23 is the largest number of units operation at one time, Jan '44.

Vs 20 squadrons for the P-40F in the Med at the peak, which would have been June or July 1943. Seems pretty close.

pbehn · Dec 17, 2018

Schweik said:
Vs 20 squadrons for the P-40F in the Med at the peak, which would have been June or July 1943. Seems pretty close.

Yes, but by this time the Typhoon was not a fighter, the RAF had Spitfire Mk IX and Mk XII and Hawker Tempest from Jan 44 plus P-51s either with RAF or UK forces.

GrauGeist · Dec 17, 2018

Schweik said:
And many really weren't suited for them - P-47 did well in the role for example but it was really a high altitude fighter at home killing enemy planes at 30,000 ft, it was a great big flak target down at treetop level and vulnerable to enemy fighters there too

The P-47 was one of the few Allied fighters the Luftwaffe loathed.

It's firepower meant certain destruction, it was able to withstand tremendous punishment while staying in the fight and it was fast. Add to that, that if the P-47 were above an adversary, they had no chance of escaping it because of it's ability to dive.

The Soviets weren't interested in it (although they were impressed by it's size), because they already had well established ground attack aircraft in the form of the IL-2 and Pe-2 as well as a high altitude interceptor in the form of the La-7, which had comparable performance but packing four 20mm cannon (two cowl ShVak, one B-20 in each wing ) compared to the P-47's eight .50 MGs.

Milosh · Dec 17, 2018

La-9 was a post war a/c.

Schweik · Dec 17, 2018

How about a P-47 down low vs 109s?

GrauGeist · Dec 17, 2018

Milosh said:
La-9 was a post war a/c.

Opps, you're right...it's been a real Monday so far...crossed up my Lavochkins

Milosh · Dec 17, 2018

Thought so.

wuzak · Dec 17, 2018

Schweik said:
Vs 20 squadrons for the P-40F in the Med at the peak, which would have been June or July 1943. Seems pretty close.

As Pbehn notes, by that time the Typhoon squadrons were concentrating on ground attack.

Much of the time Typhoon spent defending British skies, rather than venturing over Europe.

As for the build up of Luftwaffe fighters in the west in late 1943, much of that was concentrated over Germany. Also, their main goal was shooting down the "Boeings" rather than raids that the Typhoon would have participated in (as a fighter-bomber or escort fighter).

Shortround6 · Dec 17, 2018

I would note that the LA-7 didn't start service tests until Sept of 1944. Soviets tended to do things in a big way and they had about 400 aircraft on hand (from both factory No 21 and No 381) 30 aircraft were issued to the 63rd Guards fighter air corp at the First Baltic air front for one month. after 462 Sorties they claimed 55 German aircraft for 8 losses ( only 4 combat related).
All of the accidents were engine related. Although satisfactory in the LA-5FN the engine gave a number of problems in the LA-7 (or at least the early ones) due in part to the lower air intakes sucking dirt and sand into the cylinders.
Combat operations revealed the planes had insufficient fire power. "A burst of fire was rarely sufficient to bring down an enemy fighter, especially a FW 190, even though Soviet pilots opened fire at 163 to 328 feet (50 to 100M).

this is paraphrased from "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War, Vol. 1: Single-Engined Fighters" except for the part in quotes which is (hopefully) word for word.
Early LA 7 s had two 20mm guns. later ones had three (or according to some sources the difference was in which factory they were produced in) In any case some of th etwo gun fighters used ShVak cannon and most (all?) of the 3 gun fighters used the B-20 cannon.

wuzak · Dec 17, 2018

Schweik said:
Though I dislike the appellation 'candy coated', I didn't say you were one of the haters. At least you bring the signal to noise ratio up with all your dissertations.

I'll plunge into the Bomber Mafia stuff later when I have more time, but I think it's as you alluded, most didn't want any fighters, but gradually came around to supporting the P-38 and then the P-47 as the need for escorts became more obvious, and eventually fell in love with the P-51 of course.

The "Bomber Mafia" held to the theory that a heavily armed bomber would always get through.

In a way they were correct - as I understand it, not 8th AF heavy bomber raid was turned back or prevented from attacking their target by enemy fighters.

However, it was soon evident that the amount of losses for unescorted bombers in hostile airspace was unsustainable. But that was in late 1943.

It is often said that the 8th AF stopped air raids on Germany until a suitable escort was available. This is probably not true - weather conditions over Europe is the more likely culprit.

The P-38 and P-47 were supported long before the need for long range escorts were acknowledged.

The P-38 was designed as an interceptor - it was designed to defend US air space.

As was pretty much any pursuit type aircraft, including the P-35, P-36, P-40 and P-47. Though the P-38 was designed, more so than the others, to climb quickly, intercept and shoot down enemy bombers.

When the need for a long range escort became very evident after the 2nd Schweinfurt raid, the USAAF went looking for something suitable, even supporting the P-75 project.

The P-51B was being produced in sizeable numbers by that stage, and its performance showed that it was capable of escorting the bombers deep into enemy territory. It wasn't pushed as a long range escort, but that is what it became.

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

P-40 or Typhoon

P-40

Typhoon

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Major General

Colonel

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Banned

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Colonel

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Senior Master Sergeant

Captain

Major General

Captain

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads