Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (1 Viewer)

[pbehn]

If you are talking F-86 vs. Spit IX, then sure, every time. P-51 vs Spit IX, the speed difference isn't enough to offset the other advantages which for the Spit also includes climb as well as all the things that comprise maneuverability. And crucially, in dive, they were basically equivalent. I'm not sure which one had the higher dive speed but per my unanswered question upthread, once you are diving at 500 mph it doesn't take long to hit Sea Level.

Maybe the P-51 can force or refuse combat more often, but what happens when they do engage? They can try a very safe strategy of hit and run only in optimal conditions but they can't protect bombers (or defend enemy bombers) that way. If they take losses with every serious engagement the operational advantage of being faster is basically checked.

A P-51 that decides to disengage can try to pull away with that 30 mph speed advantage, but that means they will probably be in range of the guns on the Spit for enough time for a burst or two, and that sure is a risk.

Speed is an advantage, but it's not the only advantage. Only an idiot thinks it's that simple.

You seem to imagine every conflict starting with planes within shooting range.

 

[MIflyer]

In Alan Deere's book he describes how one day they were discussing a change in tactics and using the "Line Abreast" formation of the Germans. So they went up to try it out. The result was that they encountered Werner Molders just over the Channel; Deere and Molders had a mid-air. Deere's prop cut into Molder's wing. Both made it safely to the ground and they both probably should have counted it as kill.

This incident is shown as the artwork on one of the Revell releases of their 1/32 Spitfire Mk I.

Quit ironic! The first pilot to promote the Finger Four in the RAF runs head on into the one of the main inventors of the formation in the Luftwaffe.

 

[Schweik]

You seem to imagine every conflict starting with planes within shooting range.

WW2 Air to Air combat certainly doesn't start in shooting range but it either gets there eventually or doesn't actually happen.

 

[pbehn]

WW2 Air to Air combat certainly doesn't start in shooting range but it either gets there eventually or doesn't actually happen.

Exactly, if you have a speed advantage of 30 MPH you choose if it takes place or when to break it off. A squadron of Hurricanes cant force a conflict with a 109 it was a major frustration for Hurricane pilots in the BoB.

 

[Schweik]

Yes, Typhoons were in service longer, because they were rushed into service in small numbers to combat certain threats.

You keep bringing up production numbers, but you are unwilling to recognise that those greater numbers were produced over 5 years against approximately 1 for the P-40F/L.
Additionally, airframe production ran well ahead of engine production such that during 1943 many airframes were flown to maintenance units, where the engine would be pulled and sent back to the factory to be fitted to another airframe.

Many of these would later be sent back to teh factory to be modified to the latest spec (eg, fitting the 4 blade prop).

Of the 3,300 or so Tyhpoons built, how many actually saw squadron service? I'm betting less than the P-40F/L.

And by the time the bulk of the Typhoons that saw active service had got to squadrons, their role had mostly changed to A2G.

We seem to be going around in Lufberry circles on this. Doesn't anyone have the operational history of the Typhoon or do I have to buy a book on this?

The Typhoon did suffer structural failures, but those were soon fixed.

Admittedly no kind of expert on the Typhoon, but my understanding was that the problem was 'mostly' alleviated after a series of changes through to the end of 1942, some of them embarassingly stop gap, i.e. "fish scales" before they got closer to the root of the problem. They should have probably built that big wind tunnel instead of the first 1000 Typhoons, I'm a little shocked they didn't have one.

I learned about the tail problem and some of the other issues from watching a brief documentary of some surviving WW2 Typhoon pilots who seemed a bit glum about the plane and explained some of the issues. Imagine if they had made the Tempest right out of the gate instead of the Typhoon? Would have made 1942 a far better year for the English I would think.

Since the Typhoons would dive to deliver bombs or rockets, or strafe, I'm sure that there was plenty of trust in its ability to dive and its structural strength.

Hmmmm. not so sure about that, how eager were the pilots to push the limits? From what I've been reading the problem never entirely went away did it?

Now, by 1944 neither the RAF or USAAF would have considered operating the P-40 (of any variant) in the ETO (my understanding is that Italy was/is still considered part of the MTO).

But the Typhoon operated exclusively in the ETO, mostly in the A2G role.

Well I'm not sure Italy was a vastly different Tactical environment in 1943 or 1944 than Northern France. But it's true they only used P-40s in Italy. P-47s were better options though because even if they weren't as agile down low, they had the radial engine which is less vulnerable, and had the merit of being useful up high, very high indeed as well. So they could be used in a wider range of roles.

Plus lets be honest, US War dept. was pretty sick of Curtiss Aircraft by 1943 let alone 1944 and wanted to put taxpayer money into other firms.

 

[fubar57]

​

I'm just too lazy to go through it plus I'm enjoying this too much

 

[Schweik]

Exactly, if you have a speed advantage of 30 MPH you choose if it takes place or when to break it off. A squadron of Hurricanes cant force a conflict with a 109 it was a major frustration for Hurricane pilots in the BoB.

I'm going to respond to this, but it's my last attempt to engage with you Pbehn. If you get squirrely again I'm tuning you out mate.

P-40s - even the older Tomahawk and Kittyhawk, certainly could engage 109s in the Middle East one of several ways - for example either by escorting bombers / FBs or by attacking the Luftwaffe Airfields (or both simultaneously which worked particularly well).

Air combat doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is always an underlining Tactical or Strategic reality for fighters which boils down to a competition between bombers.

• In the BoB it was about shooting down vs protecting those Stukas, He 111, Do 17, and Ju 88s. One way for Hurricanes to be sure to encounter 109s was to start shredding through the bomber streams.
• In North Africa it was a war between the Blenheims, Baltimores, Bostons and Mitchells on one hand (plus Hurri and Kittyhawk fighter bombers), vs. the Stukas, Ju 88s, CANT 1007 and Fw-190 Jabos.
• In Russia, Pe 2 and Il2 and I-153 vs. Stuka and Ju 88 and HS 123, again in service of the tank war.
• In the Pacific through 1943 - D3A and B5N and G4M vs. SBD and TBF... and later on Beaufighters and Kenneys A-20 and B-25 strafers and skip bombers
• For the 8th AF it was about the 4 engine bombers.
• In the Pacific after 1943 - the death struggle against the B-29s

Fighters can either participate and support the bomber war and by extension the land war (or Strategic equivalent), or they can basically ignore it and try to rack up kills which is what JG 27 did for a long time in the Middle East. By contrast the DAF and the Russians both heavily focused on supporting the land war and the Tactical bombers, which cost them a lot of pilots and aircraft, but in both cases gradually adjusted to the threat of the 'snappers' as the DAF pilots called them, and started taking increasingly effective steps to neutralize that threat once the ground situation stabilized.

Germans in particular tend to get lauded for being so well prepared in the beginning of the war. Not only did they have good aircraft they had fine tuned the use of them and developed very good (the best) Tactical doctrines and trained their pilots well. I think this has largely to do with the fact that many other countries were slow to realize war was really upon them, the British and the Soviets and the French were all still thinking a little too long that WWI had been so horrible nobody would intentionally start another mass conflagration again. Of course they did realize but the German leadership had already decided war was coming much earlier so they had that initial advantage that fed into their own propaganda and crazy mindset of superiority etc.

And the early years were dark indeed, with the turning point in 1942. Early 1942 was a nightmare for the British, Russians, Americans and ANZAC etc. By the end of 1942 things looked a hell of a lot better. In part this was because they had learned to use all their weapons much better, from the standpoint of training, straightening out all of the teething flaws, and developing good Tactics which took into account the advantages of flaws of both Allied and Axis kit.

They even got the Typhoon working, more or less!

 

[Schweik]

View attachment 522865
​

I'm just too lazy to go through it plus I'm enjoying this too much

Breh... crack that book open! I have too much on my plate though I am tempted to buy it...

 

[Graeme]

Plus lets be honest, US War dept. was pretty sick of Curtiss Aircraft by 1943 let alone 1944 and wanted to put taxpayer money into other firms.

They certainly were...

(Bowers -Curtiss Aircraft - 1987 - pp475)

 

[Schweik]

Very familiar with the postwar narrative shorthand, but I think it would have gone out of production if:

• It wasn't still able to continue to destroy fairly large numbers of Axis aircraft well into 1944 in the Med / Italy and to 1945 in the CBI and ...
• it had a relatively low pilot casualty rate in the process and ...
• other fighters like the P-39, P-46, P-60, P-75 etc. had really worked out and ...
• the eventual replacements like P-38 and P-47 hadn't taken so long to shake out their teething problems ..

There were several other reasons to be mad at Curtiss, namely:

• Defective engine and bribery scandal
• P-47G production debacle
• Previously mentioned P-46, P-53, P-60 and P-62
• C-46
• SB2C Helldiver
• SO3C Seamew (a truly epic catastrophe of an airplane, of which one pilot noted "'it is hard to imagine how, even in wartime, such an aircraft could have been accepted from the factory, let alone given valuable cargo space across the Atlantic "
• Quality control problems with late run P-40s
• C-76 Caravan

And more generally speaking, the failure of Curtiss to produce a good, truly viable aircraft after the P-36 and P-40, with the possible exception of the SC Seahawk which was a minor type (float plane fighter) that came late in the war.

 

[Schweik]

Curtiss wasn't the only culprit of course - every country had their major cultural weak spots painfully visible in WW2, Englands class system and Victorian foibles, Soviet brutal Communist paranoia and deadly repression, Germany their Nazi fantasies of superiority / catastrophic weakness (especially to the British) in intelligence, waste of resources on their mass-extermination nightmare and obsession with super weapons... for the US it was mostly corporate corruption as related to procurement and other issues.

But for that Lockheed comes to mind, Bell aircraft, and other aircraft-related weapons like for example the Torpedos.

 

[Milosh]

Fish scales are fish plates.

The tail failures are one of those WW2 myths that just won't die. Yes there was a few but blown out of proportion. The early Bf109Fs also had tail failure problems.

 

[pbehn]

Fish scales are fish plates.

The tail failures are one of those WW2 myths that just won't die. Yes there was a few but blown out of proportion. The early Bf109Fs also had tail failure problems.

There were dive failures with Mosquitos (undercarriage or doors opening), which don't seem to affect its status as an all time great.

 

[Schweik]

Hey I can believe postwar distortions about the reputation of a fighter. Maybe when somebody finally cracks one of those Typhoon operatio9nal history books we'll get a better sense of whether it mattered in combat or not.

 

[pbehn]

Curtiss wasn't the only culprit of course - every country had their major cultural weak spots painfully visible in WW2, Englands class system and Victorian foibles, .

You repeatedly post about "England" and now you blather about the class system and Victorian values. post about "England" once more and I will refer to US forces in WW2 as "Confederates" it is sheer ignorance and an insult to everyone who took part who wasn't English. And please refrain from "class system" posts when the US military tried to introduce a colour bar in British society, and were told by the British from the top to the bottom to "do one". Happy Christmas.

 

[Schweik]

You repeatedly post about "England" and now you blather about the class system and Victorian values. post about "England" once more and I will refer to US forces in WW2 as "Confederates" it is sheer ignorance and an insult to everyone who took part who wasn't English. And please refrain from "class system" posts when the US military tried to introduce a colour bar in British society, and were told by the British from the top to the bottom to "do one". Happy Christmas.

You are sensitive and raw to the point of hysteria - like a Public School boy after his first proper hazing, but for reasons that are unfathomable... don't read or comment on my posts if they trigger you so bad you moppet.

I never denigrated the ANZACs or South Africans or South Asians or anyone else in the Commonwealth, quite to the contrary as I am certain you are well aware. Nor will I be baited into contrasting English Colonialism in places like India or "Rhodesia" with American racism etc., I equally condemn it all. With regard to class issues in the context of this discussion I was referring directly to conflicts between higher leadership and pilots / squadron commanders both in North Africa and the Pacific, leading to events like the famous Morotai Mutiny which was instigated by decorated veterans of the North African campaign.

You can refer to US forces by any name you like I couldn't possibly care less what you write about anything. Your posts have a low signal to noise ratio, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge and a sort of desperate, bitter frustrated angst which while often amusing for it's sheer pointlessly outraged pathos, clearly has sources beyond any discussions here and does not add anything of any use to the subject at hand.

You have a fine and happy Christmas yourself sir and I wish you luck with your personal issues.

 

[wuzak]

Very familiar with the postwar narrative shorthand, but I think it would have gone out of production if:

• It wasn't still able to continue to destroy fairly large numbers of Axis aircraft well into 1944 in the Med / Italy and to 1945 in the CBI and ...
• it had a relatively low pilot casualty rate in the process and ...
• other fighters like the P-39, P-46, P-60, P-75 etc. had really worked out and ...
• the eventual replacements like P-38 and P-47 hadn't taken so long to shake out their teething problems ..

By late 1943 the P-38 and P-47 were over their "teething problems". Especially the P-47. No need to produce after that.

That the P-40 had some success in 1944 and 145 would not have any bearing on the decisions made regarding its production in 1942 or 1943. How could they know?

The P-39 was a contemporary of the P-40, so it would never have replaced the P-40. Any P-40 replacement would be replacing the P-39 as well (if it were actually being used by the USAAF).

The P-46 and P-60 programs were an indication problems with Curtiss at the time. They were unable to improve their P-40 design - not because of its excellence, but because of their own issues.

The P-75 would not have been a replacement for the P-40. It was designed for a specific role, one which the P-40 could not perform - long range high altitude bomber escort.

 

[Schweik]

By late 1943 the P-38 and P-47 were over their "teething problems". Especially the P-47. No need to produce after that.

That the P-40 had some success in 1944 and 145 would not have any bearing on the decisions made regarding its production in 1942 or 1943. How could they know?

Agree on both counts, they made production decisions in 1942 and 1943 based on how the aircraft were performing at that time, in 1943 (until the end of the year roughly) P-38s and P-47s were still having substantial problems. P-38s were particularly disappointing in Europe, and maybe had been given up for the ETO by the time they were actually 'fixed'. If P-38s were performing as well in Europe as they did in the Pacific in 1942 they might have cut P-40 production out by 1943.

I think as it actually went down they were still making P-40s for a while into 1944. The Merlin 60 powered Mustang of course was the real unqualified success story for US fighters.

The P-39 was a contemporary of the P-40, so it would never have replaced the P-40. Any P-40 replacement would be replacing the P-39 as well (if it were actually being used by the USAAF).

What I mean is if the P-39 was wildly successful for the Americans the way it seems to have been for the Russians, they might have ended P-40 production in 1942 and concentrated on P-39s a bit longer and on a larger scale.

The P-46 and P-60 programs were an indication problems with Curtiss at the time. They were unable to improve their P-40 design - not because of its excellence, but because of their own issues.

No argument there.

 

[pbehn]

Germans in particular tend to get lauded for being so well prepared in the beginning of the war. Not only did they have good aircraft they had fine tuned the use of them and developed very good (the best) Tactical doctrines and trained their pilots well. I think this has largely to do with the fact that many other countries were slow to realize war was really upon them, the British and the Soviets and the French were all still thinking a little too long that WWI had been so horrible nobody would intentionally start another mass conflagration again.

Germans in particular get particularly lauded by you, not quite as much as the confederate forces from the new world though . You make no mention of the Victorian British class system producing the first integrated defence system which halted a massively superior force of aircraft who (as you explained) had much better equipment and better pilots with better tactics.

 

[michael rauls]

Agree on both counts, they made production decisions in 1942 and 1943 based on how the aircraft were performing at that time, in 1943 (until the end of the year roughly) P-38s and P-47s were still having substantial problems. P-38s were particularly disappointing in Europe, and maybe had been given up for the ETO by the time they were actually 'fixed'. If P-38s were performing as well in Europe as they did in the Pacific in 1942 they might have cut P-40 production out by 1943.

I think as it actually went down they were still making P-40s for a while into 1944. The Merlin 60 powered Mustang of course was the real unqualified success story for US fighters.



What I mean is if the P-39 was wildly successful for the Americans the way it seems to have been for the Russians, they might have ended P-40 production in 1942 and concentrated on P-39s a bit longer and on a larger scale.



No argument there.

Yes they did produce p40s well into 1944. The last p40N went out the door in I believe October.