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

[slaterat]

Overall the last 28 pages have been a pretty good discussion of the original subject but I have not seen any evidence to convince me that these two aircraft are comparable. The Typhoon owns the entire flight envelope except for perhaps continuous turn rate and low speed roll rate. The Typhoon compares much more closely to the FW 190 and the F4U. Much like the Hurricane the P-40 did its job early in the war and in post war history, its accomplishments are often overshadowed by the latter higher performance fighters. The P-40 was never considered adequate to fight in Northern Europe, and was even longer in the tooth by 43.

Earlier in the thread there was some rather undeserved criticism of Sydney Camm and Hawkers. IMHO Hawker designed a very successful string of fighters in WWII, from the Hurricane -Typhoon-Tempest. Compare this to Curtis who really just flogged the P-40 for the entire war.

 

[Schweik]

Where do you get low speed roll rate in particular? You have some data that the Typhoon had a good (or even decent) high speed roll rate?

From what I understand P-40 owns maneuverability across the board - instantaneous turn, sustained turn, high and low speed roll, and handling overall.

Dive speed is effectively equivalent whether everybody gets that or not.

Dive speed + superior maneuverability is what made the P-40 still a substantial killer of Axis aircraft in 1943. Almost all of the 593 victory claims made by P-40 units in the Med were in 1943, in fact in the first six months. The P-40F was also peforming pretty well up to at least 20,000 ft.

And it did more harm to the enemy than the Typhoon, which is the bottom line for evaluating a fighter, no matter how you try to spin it.

• Some claim that the design problems with the Typhoon are a myth, but that doesn't seem to be what the books say.
• Maybe only 20 or 30 were actually destroyed in tail failure / crashes but it seemed to affect pilots faith in the aircraft. Like how far they were willing to push it.
• Others claimed that the Typhoon was operating in a more deadly area, but nobody has yet showed me that Northern France in 1943 was more dangerous for Allied fighters than Italy.
• Others claimed the Typhoon wasn't in the field as long or in the same numbers, but in fact the operational history data emerging in the thread show that in 1943 there were basically the same number of squadrons deployed.
• There were other design problems besides the tail falling off - the overly thick wing and incredible weight of the aircraft would also affect drag and vertical maneuvering, and offset the value of the powerful engine.

 

[Schweik]

Here is an interesting interview with a Typhoon pilot, I think maybe South African based on name and accent. Impressive old guy. He starts talking about the Typhoon at the 06:00 minute mark.



A few things I noticed:

• He mentions he was recruited (as a volunteer) due to the high attrition of Typhoon pilots, he mentions that from June 6 - Aug 17 lost x 151 Typhoon pilots
• Said they lost 21 pilots during one day out of the Wing during Market Garden. Mentions getting 6 tanks on one day.
• Mentions some 'Trojan horse' traps with 8 x 20mm AA guns hidden in a train (top opens up and AAA opens up)
• Losses attributed to flying at low altitude and AAA
• He mentions that he was hit by an 88 and it just punched a hole through his fuselage (points up how tough the plane was). Wacked his rudder trim.
• Said rudder trim is needed on a Typhoon to keep strait in a dive (they said the same thing about a P-40 when in terminal velocity). But maybe worse here. He said he couldn't land properly without rudder trim.
• Nevertheless he survived three crash landings. Again tough plane.
• Toward the end he mentions 666 pilots killed after D-Day if I caught that right.

 

[Schweik]

Another shorter interview with a Typhoon pilot here

• Called the Typhoon a 'perfect' ground attack aircraft
• He mentions Canadian Typhoon squadrons carried bombs, English carried rockets (I think someone else mentioned this upthread)
• "All kinds of flying problems", "not a good fighter", ideal platform to carry rockets
• Best weapon Allies had for destroying tanks
• Casualties with Typhoons something like 50%

 

[tomo pauk]

This Tempest website has some great information on the Sabre engine and how good it was, The Hawker Tempest Page .

Unfortunately, Mr. Setright presented zero evidence about claimed power levels there, whether service values or from bench tests. Hi's conspiracy theory does not hold water, either.

 

[Schweik]

And another (also I think Canadian)

• Mentions doing 500 mph pulling out of a dive with a holed glycol tank over Holland
• Steep climb full throttle made it to 10,000' in "just a few moments"
• Describes a pretty easy / gentle crash landing

 

[Schweik]

Finally found some interviews with P-40F/L pilots, these are from 325th FG pilots



You'll have to skip ahead as there is a lot of fluff before and between interviews, it's an amateur documentary. Nice research though it's pretty long with a lot of heroic music etc. So I marked some time stamps with notable comments. Narrator comments indicated with a *before the time stamp. There are basically two good 5 minute pilot interviews (indicated in bold), one of which refers to air to air combat. I also looked up a couple of the engagements mentioned by the narrator when he gave specific dates to check his numbers and what really happened, which you can see down at the bottom.

10:30 Pilot mentions 5 months transition training on P-40s before going into combat (~130 hrs flying time)
13:30 Description of taking off from the USS Ranger. 20 degrees of flaps, took off at military power 42" Hg
17:20 Mentions they had no combat in January or February. One air to air collision was the first casualty in Feb. Gunnery practice etc. during this time. Convoy escort from US.
20:18 April 5 1943 first combat mission (escort). Mentions high low and side cover (which I've mentioned)
*21:20 first air combat, turned into attack by two Bf 109s. Mentions 59 escort missions without a lost bomber [ this didn't last though see below].
*23:10 first dive bombing mission (one squadron escorting one bombing)
*25:00 May 1943 first air to air combat victory claim (Bf 109 in a landing approach)
*29:10 All three squadrons of 325th established. Mission by 317th to Sardinia May 19, 1943. First victory for "Herky" Green.
30:00 pilot interview on May 19 mission. 317th Sqn 'caught with pants down' from above. "Herky" attacked by six, claimed one. "He was able to turn first one way and then another way and then avoid them"* "whichever way he turned, the other guy was going to get him"*. "20mm shell takes out radio, instrument panel shot out." Went into a spin to escape. Supercharger on (WEP?) for ten minutes engine smoking. Made it back home. All longerons severed in at least one place.
*35:00 Pilots learned to carry / fly with 1,000 lb bomb after a successful field experiment. Claims 325th was the only unit carrying 1,000 lb (probably not true)
*38:00 325th only fighter group flying over Sardinia. Checkerboard pattern inspired by Werner Voss, applied in July 1943
*41:00 325th operating from Mateur airfield in Tunisia (which looks pretty hellish due to bugs)
*42:00 July 20th raid on Sardinia (Decimomannu again). 325th turned into enemy fighters. Detailed account of battle with first 'triple kill' and first Ace.
*43:45 July 22nd 317th Fighter Squadron of 325th. Detailed account of low altitude fight over Sardninia. "Warhawk's strength was in it's turning ability". Fought in pairs***.
*45:00 -49:00 Detailed account of July 30 1943 engagement over Sardinia****. "Even when it looked like they might be in trouble, the P-40s turning ability would soon swing the balance in favor of the Allied pilot."
*53:00 Mentioned frequent friendly fire incidents with inexperienced 1st FG P-38 pilots. Mentions a prank played by 325th FG C/O Robert Baseler flying a 'captured' Bf 109G flying low passes over the 1st FG P-38 base. Said he wanted to "show them what a Bf 109 actually looked like".
*57:00 DFC award to Lt Watkins on August 28 shooting down 2 enemy planes and saving fellow pilots who had been bounced. This was the last mission with P-40's *****
*59:00 Narrator says they switched over to superior P-47s


So if that documentary is correct the 325th shot down all their claimed 133 victories with the P-40s between May and August 1943. Based on checking their records I would guess it probably translates to about 40-60 Axis fighters and maybe another 10 other aircraft actually destroyed in the air, and a bunch more damaged (which I don't usually count in the summaries).


* Sound familiar?
** I looked up the May 19 engagement over Decimomannu Sardinia, it's on Page 43 of Shores MAW Vol IV. It was a very busy day:

Allied Claims
RAF Spitfires claimed 2 x Fw 190s
325th FG P-40s claimed 4 x Bf 109s [it doesn't mention Herky Greens claim but one of the claims is anonymous]
P-38 pilots claimed 5 x Bf 109s and 2x MC 202s
B-17 and B-24 gunners also made ~ 20 claims

Axis Claims
Germans (27, 53 and 51 FG) claimed 4 x P-40s, 4 x P-38s, 2 x Spitfires, and 4 x B-17s
Italians (153, 155, 161 and 20 Gruppo) claimed 5 x P-38s and 1 x B-24

Actual losses were
1 x Spitfire, 3 x P-38s, 2 x P-40s, and 2 x B-25s (two P-38s also returned home on one engine) - 6 fighters
4 x Bf 109 (one specifically says lost at Decimomannu), 3 x Fw 190s, 2 x MC 205, 1 x Me 210 - 9 fighters

Shores suggests 1 x Bf 109 and 2 x MC 205s crashed as the result of combat over Decimomannu
~25 fighters were also damaged or destroyed by bombs. This is by the way one of those days I would not normally bring up because it's hard to tell who shot down what enemy plane.

*** This engagement was covered in this recent post to the Bf 109 - P-40 thread. The opposition were actually Italian C205s and C202, of which 7 were lost, plus one captured French D.520, for the loss of 2 P-40s.
**** This somewhat famous or infamous engagement was covered in the same post linked above, 317th FS / 325th FG P-40 pilots claimed 21 enemy fighters. Germans lost 6 x Bf 109G-6 and G-4s from III./JG 77, and 8./JG 77). 317th FS lost 1 Robert L. Sederberg PoW. 2x MC 202s were also listed as damaged that day.

*****I looked up this 28 August 1943 battle too in MAW IV. It's on Pages 316-317

It was another really busy day.

Allied Claims
Spitfire Mk IX pilots from 81 Sqn RAF claimed 4 x Bf 109s destroyed
P-38 pilots of the 1st, 14th and 82nd FG claimed 16 enemy fighters (a mix of 109s, MC 202s and Fw 190s)
P-40 pilots from 325th FG claimed 7 x Bf 109s destroyed, 3 probables and 2 damaged
An American Spitfire pilot from the 52nd FG claimed 1 Bf 109

Axis Claims
JG 77 claimed 3 x P-40 and 2 x Beaufighters (none were lost that day, possibly the Baltimore)
JG 53 claimed 4 x P-38s
JG 3 (I think Fw 190?) claimed 3 x P-38s
Italian MC 202 and 205 pilots from 18, 21, 22 and 23 Gruppo claimed 16 P-38s and two B-24s

Losses
5 x P-38s 'shot down by e/a" (four from the 1st FG and 1 from the 14th FG)
1 x P-40 from 325th FG lost reportedly to flak.
1 x Spitfire 'after combat with Bf 109'
1 x Baltimore IV reportedly to flak

5 x Bf 109Gs (includes 2 crash landed)
1 x MC 202

Shores attributes two Bf 109s lost over Sardinia 'possibly' to the 325th P-40s

 

[pbehn]

I think a few of you need to tone it down and relax. Drink a beer, get laid, rub one off, something to get your internet testosterone in balance. Not taking sides here. Both of you are acting rediculous. It really does remind me of the FIFA World Cup thread.

Chill out, be adults or the thread will be closed for a cooling down period.

• ome claim that the design problems with the Typhoon are a myth, but that doesn't seem to be what the books say.
• Maybe only 20 or 30 were actually destroyed in tail failure / crashes but it seemed to affect pilots faith in the aircraft. Like how far they were willing to push it.
• Others claimed that the Typhoon was operating in a more deadly area, but nobody has yet showed me that Northern France in 1943 was more dangerous for Allied fighters than Italy.
• Others claimed the Typhoon wasn't in the field as long or in the same numbers, but in fact the operational history data emerging in the thread show that in 1943 there were basically the same number of squadrons deployed.
• There were other design problems besides the tail falling off - the overly thick wing and incredible weight of the aircraft would also affect drag and vertical maneuvering, and offset the value of the powerful engine.

[/QUOTE]
who has claimed they are a myth? Produce a book or even a post here that says they are a myth, you say they are a myth so you can disprove a non existent myth? In an era where 2,000BHP tail draggers were notoriously dangerous especially for inexperienced pilots 30 out of 3000 is not a high risk especially as most losses were early on. The P-51 was also a risk when fully loaded, many aircraft were.

You quote the high losses to ground fire of the Typhoon, and don't consider that makes the environment it was in any different to Northern Italy. The Typhoon could go into a target and hit it at 400MPH TAS that is why it was kept in front line service in 1944, it used rockets actually as a stand off weapon so it didn't have to fly over the target. Despite all the missions flown by the P-51s on bomber escort most losses were incurred in ground attack, it was an extremely dangerous place to be. You quote losses from Arnhem do you know where it is? And how significant that battle was? It is a short cycle ride from Germany 65 miles from Duisburg. To pretend that the air defence and concentration of Arnhem was the same as Italy is fantasy, like pretending the Isle of Skye was as well defended as Kent in 1940. On average more than 10% of USA pilots were lost in training and your focus is on an issue that concerned a maximum of 1% of one front line UK aircraft .
Here is a table of losses in continental USA which as far as I am aware was not a war zone for aircraft 24 fatal accidents with the A-36 (how many produced) 131 fatal accidents with the P-51 337 fatal accidents with the P-38 and Oh lo and behold a whole 324 fatal accidents involving 350 deaths and 967 aircraft wrecked IN TRAINING IN THE USA WITH THE P-40
United States World War II Aircraft Loss Statistics during Flight Training

 

[Schweik]

who has claimed they are a myth? Produce a book or even a post here that says they are a myth, you say they are a myth so you can disprove a non existent myth?

Nope - you are going off half cocked again breh. See this post please. The direct quote was "The tail failures are one of those WW2 myths that just won't die. "

Now here is a question for you, are you going to admit you were wrong just now? Or double down?

In an era where 2,000BHP tail draggers were notoriously dangerous especially for inexperienced pilots 30 out of 3000 is not a high risk especially as most losses were early on. The P-51 was also a risk when fully loaded, many aircraft were.

You quote the high losses to ground fire of the Typhoon, and don't consider that makes the environment it was in any different to Northern Italy. The Typhoon could go into a target and hit it at 400MPH TAS that is why it was kept in front line service in 1944, it used rockets actually as a stand off weapon so it didn't have to fly over the target. Despite all the missions flown by the P-51s on bomber escort most losses were incurred in ground attack, it was an extremely dangerous place to be. You quote losses from Arnhem do you know where it is? And how significant that battle was?

Yes, I'm quite familiar with Market Garden and I've been to Arnhem so I do know where it is. And mate, please let this sink in a bit - it wasn't me that was saying this - it was the Typhoon pilot doing the interview who said it. Did you watch any of those interviews? I also never said flak wasn't dangerous. Plenty of P-40s and every other Allied aircraft were lost to Flak in Italy.

It is a short cycle ride from Germany 65 miles from Duisburg. To pretend that the air defence and concentration of Arnhem was the same as Italy is fantasy, like pretending the Isle of Skye was as well defended as Kent in 1940.

I think Anzio was pretty well defended. El Alamein and Tobruk battlefields were also pretty intense.

On average more than 10% of USA pilots were lost in training and your focus is on an issue that concerned a maximum of 1% of one front line UK aircraft .
Here is a table of losses in continental USA which as far as I am aware was not a war zone for aircraft 24 fatal accidents with the A-36 (how many produced) 131 fatal accidents with the P-51 337 fatal accidents with the P-38 and Oh lo and behold a whole 324 fatal accidents involving 350 deaths and 967 aircraft wrecked IN TRAINING IN THE USA WITH THE P-40
United States World War II Aircraft Loss Statistics during Flight Training

You seem to be a little hysterical. I again, was just highlighting the quotes from the RAF and RCAF pilots in the interviews. Take it up with them. I don't believe I said anything about training losses.

S

 

[Schweik]

Just to be clear, in the interests of raising the signal to noise ratio of the thread I googled "interview typhoon pilot youtube" and watched the first 4 videos that came up. Three of them had some kind of performance or operational data in them so I posted it here. I had no idea what they were going to say, I just remembered what kind of stuff I'd heard Typhoon pilots say in the past. Feel free to do the same and post your findings.

But be cautious! Instead of thanks for posting the links and summarizing the main relevant points they made, I got insults, accusations of not knowing where Holland or Belgium are, claims that I refused to recognize the importance of Market Garden (I watched A Bridge Too Far and read the book too, does that count?), saw attacks against Americans in general (as if I'm Uncle Sam or something?) Let me be clear, while I am interested in the battles of the first half of the 1940s, I am not personally interested in fighting the battles of the 1940s. Especially those between the closest Allies of the War.

Pilot interviews or testimony about the P-40F or L was harder to come by but by searching the names of the various MTO fighter groups I eventually found a few, one of which I have watched so far and spent some time posting highlights of here, and transcribing combat records for the various days of fighting mentioned in the documentary.

As for the infamous breaking tails of the Typhoon, I am not refusing the believe it is a wartime myth, but all the books on WW2 fighters I have do mention it, and note that it was a lingering problem that lasted until the end of 1943 and was never fully resolved (until they made the Tempest). This for a fighter in the field since 1941. I didn't invent that story. If it's a myth then by all means, debunk it. Maybe find a video where some actual Typhoon pilots say it was no big deal, that would be pretty convincing.


And for the record, when I started this thread 29 pages ago, I had no idea how the P-40F/L would stack up to the Typhoon*. I vaguely knew that the Typhoon was A) powerful and B) had some serious problems. I knew that the merlin P-40s in particular were much better performing fighters, especially in terms of fighting the enemy in the air, than most people realize. So I thought it would be a fun exercise to compare the two. I did not set out to belittle the Queen or cricket or for that matter George Washington or Apple Pie. I'm interested in history not ideology.

This thread was instigated by somebody else insisting that Typhoon was much better than a P-40, and then when I suggested agreeing to disagree, pushed it further until I started this thread to settle the issue. 29 pages in, I have my opinion, some people for sure never changed the ones they had from the get go. But I think I can at least say it's not so cut and dry is it.

 

[wuzak]

29 pages in, I have my opinion, some people for sure never changed the ones they had from the get go. But I think I can at least say it's not so cut and dry is it.

I believe you had that opinion one page in, and you haven't changed your position at all.

And I believe the P-40F/L vs the Typhoon I is pretty "cut and dry", and the Typhoon is the winner.

 

[Schweik]

You are entitled to your opinion buddy, I can say from observation you don't seem to change it on anything.

 

[Schweik]

Tiffie claims

Bf109: 54 destroyed, 8 probable
Fw190: 94, 16
Do217: 23, 2
Ju88: 20, 1

Total: 246.5, 27

Ok so just to kind of reiterate a point here. The above, from what I understand, are the victory claims for all of the ~30 Typhoon squadrons deployed in combat at some point or another from 1941 to 1944 (or 45? when did they phase them out?). I just learned today from watching that 325th FG documentary, that the following are victory claims for one fighter group (3 squadrons of usually 12 fighters each) for four months in 1943 - May, June, July and August. Source is available here. As you can see, for the P-40 it shows 133 aircraft which further breaks down to:

Bf 109 - 95
M.C. 202* -26
Me 323 - 7
Fi. 156 -3
Ju 52 -2

By the time this particular unit encountered Fw 190s in any numbers they had already converted to P-47s. These are all from May to August 1943, during which period they lost 17 fighters in combat. As you can see they mostly claimed fighters shot down. Only 5 transport planes out of 133 and no bombers. This fighter group was attached to a bomb wing and their main mission was to provide escort to three B-26 squadrons.

This is just one unit over the course of four months. In the Med, during admittedly an active period, but hardly Market Garden.

Now I've read a lot of different reasons in this thread, some of which sound plausible, why pilots flying the Typhoon didn't score so many victories, I'll admit the high number of Fw 190s destroyed at a time when they were such a menace, is a big deal and the scores against V-1s are important too. But I also heard with my own ears the descriptions by the Typhoon pilots themselves in the 3 interviews I posted above. One said and this is a direct quote not a paraphrase, the Typhoon had "All kinds of flying problems" and was "not a good fighter", but it was an "ideal platform to carry rockets.". This was a veteran who survived many combat missions and lived through the war, not something most Typhoon pilots could say. Another one pointed out he couldn't fly or land without his rudder trim tabs. That doesn't sound good.

As the man said, "He who has eyes to see, let him see"

S

*(some of these were actually M.C. 205s and some were Re 2002s)

 

[wuzak]

How many of those Typhoon squadrons were active as fighter only units, how many were A2G units?

How many were being used in 1941? Where were they being used? How often was there contact with enemy aircraft?

 

[Schweik]

Somebody posted a chart, looked like a lot active in 1943, 15 squadrons iirc?

 

[wuzak]

Somebody posted a chart, looked like a lot active in 1943, 15 squadrons iirc?

18 squadrons active in 1943, according to the chart.

re: Typhoon use - recreated a grainy B&W chart I had that seemed to be scanned from a Polish Typhoon book. It's not finished but I figured I'd post the WIP.

Typhoon Mk.Ia - Typhoon Mk.Ib

But there weren't any operating in 1941 and no many 1942, at least until the end of 1942.

Which is something you've emphasised repeatedly - that the Typhoon was active from 1941 and the P-40F was not.

The units operating in late 1942 and early 1942 were primarily chasing small numbers of low level fighter bomber raiders (ie Fw 190 Jabos). This is also why Spitfire Vs were modified for better low down performance and why the Spitfire XII was put into the field (100 made).

How many of the 18 squadrons active in 1943 operated over Europe, which wasn't an overly target rich environment at that time - that would change later in 1943 as the 8th AF day time bombing campaign ramped up.

But also at that time Typhoon squadrons were starting to concentrate on A2G missions.

From that list:
No. 245 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"In January 1943 it moved to Scotland again, where it began converting to Typhoons, taking these back down south in March. The squadron was then allocated to the 2nd Tactical Air Force on its formation in June 1943 and soon began attacking enemy lines of communication and other suitable targets in preparation for Operation Overlord. From April on it began using rocket projectiles and on 27 June 1944, it moved onto the continent, from where it continued to support the Allied advance[10] through France, the Low Countries and into Germany."

No. 247 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"As well as continuing its night defence role the squadron was involved in early offensive 'intruder' attacks against Luftwaffe aerodrome in northern France. When the Hawker Typhoon replaced the Hurricane, these type of operations continued in daylight. No. 247 was heavily involved in attacks prior to and including D-Day. Targets included transport systems, and weapon emplacements as well as providing close air support to ground forces. On 27 June 1944, the squadron moved to Coulombs in Normandy, beginning the subsequent drive through France, Belgium, the Netherlands and into Germany."

No. 193 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"No. 193 Squadron was formed at RAF Harrowbeer, Devon on 18 December 1942 as a fighter/ground attack unit. Although designated to operate the new Hawker Typhoon, the squadron at first used the Hawker Hurricane until the Typhoon was declared operational in April 1943.

In November 1943 the squadron was used to attack the German V-1 launch sites. The squadron then moved base in the south of England a number of times supporting the buildup for invasion. From 6 June 1944 the squadron was busy supporting the invasion force in the close-support fighter-bomber role. It was based on the Continent from 11 September 1944 as it continued to support the advancing armies in France, Belgium and Germany."

No. 3 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"In February 1943 it re-equipped with the Hawker Typhoon for fighter-bomber and anti-shipping strikes. It re-equipped in March 1944 with the new Hawker Tempest fighter, operating over the Normandy beach-head and against German V1 flying bombs, claiming 288 V-1s shot down."

No. 174 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"The squadron formed on 2 March 1942 at RAF Manston and equipped with Hurricanes and then rocket armed Typhoons in April 1943. They participated in the Dieppe Raid[1], and were involved in attacks on shipping and V-1 flying bomb launch sites from several bases in the UK. The squadron moved to Camilly, France after D-Day and then withdrew back to the UK, before joining the allied advance across Europe."

No. 175 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"No. 175 Squadron RAF was a part of 121 Wing; 83 Group; 2nd Tactical Airforce; RAF in support of World War II Normandy landings, and supported the allied advance through France Holland and Belgium on into Germany. The squadron was active from under canvas on temporary landing grounds in a matter of days after the D-Day landings. The squadron initially flew Hawker Hurricane fighters and was later outfitted with Hawker Typhoons prior to the invasion. The squadron was based in various locations during World War II such as RAF Redhill and RAF Dunsfold."

No. 198 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"The squadron reformed at Digby as a fighter squadron equipped with the Hawker Typhoon on 8 December 1942. From March 1943 198 Squadron joined 609 Squadron at Manston where it provided fighter-escorts to the twin-engined Westland Whirlwind fighter bomber on sorties into continental Europe. Over the next nine months 198 Squadron and 609 Squadron were the only Typhoon units to operate full-time on escort duties for RAF and USAAF bombers and long-range fighter sweeps (code-named "Ramrods") over France, Belgium and the Netherlands; during these operations the squadron used long-range Typhoons each equipped with a cigar-shaped 45 gallon fuel tank mounted below each wing. In these roles the unit was very successful, becoming one of the top scoring Typhoon units.

During this time most of the other Typhoon units began to be equipped with bomb racks or rocket rails and had started training to carry out ground attack operations in preparation for the cross-channel invasion.

After building up a score of enemy aircraft destroyed the squadron changed role to ground attack at the beginning of 1944, when the Typhoons were fitted with RP-3 rockets. In January 1944 the squadron became part of the Second Tactical Air Force's 123 Airfield (later known as 123 Wing), partnered with 609 Squadron."

No. 197 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"The squadron reformed on 21 November 1942 at RAF Turnhouse and was supplied with Typhoons. It then operated from RAF Manston, RAF Tangmere and RAF Hurn. It supported the Normandy landings in June 1944 and re-located to France where it followed the Allied advance across Europe seeking targets of opportunity. On 3 May 1945 the squadron took part in the attack that resulted in the sinking of the SS Cap Arcona. It disbanded at Hildesheim, Germany, on 31 August 1945."

No. 195 Squadron RAF - Wikipedia
"No. 195 Squadron was formed at RAF Duxford on 16 November 1942 with the Hawker Typhoon. After a long training phase the squadron became operational at RAF Ludham with the Typhoon operating offensive Rhubarb sorties and from the end of the year was involved with Roadstead operations using the Typhoons as bombers. The squadron was disbanded at RAF Fairlop on 15 February 1944.

On 1 October 1944 the squadron was reformed at RAF Witchford mainly from the former C Flight of 115 Squadron. Part of No. 3 Group it operated the Avro Lancaster in the heavy bomber role and operated from RAF Wratting Common until the end of the war in Europe. At the end of the European war the squadron was involved in supply drops over the Netherlands and transporting Prisoners of War to the UK from Germany and Italy. The squadron was disbanded for the final time on 14 August 1945."

 

[wuzak]

I started with units that first equipped with Typhoons in 1943 or late 1942.

I stopped because there was a clear pattern.

Also:
Rhubarb – fighter or fighter-bomber sections, at times of low cloud and poor visibility, crossing the English Channel and then dropping below cloud level to search for opportunity targets such as railway locomotives and rolling stock, aircraft on the ground, enemy troops, and vehicles on roads.
Roadstead – dive bombing and low level attacks on enemy ships at sea or in harbour.
Ramrod – short range bomber attacks to destroy ground targets

Glossary of RAF code names - Wikipedia

These are some of the type of sorties that the Typhoons were involved in.

 

[Shortround6]

Thank you for the time/ effort in typing that out and doing the research.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Well, I've been sitting on the sidelines watching this incredible schoolboy lunchroom food fight with my jaw hanging open, and all I've got to say is it's been part entertaining, part disgusting, and part educational.
It seems to me the Tiffie was a slightly higher performance aircraft with flaws, while the 'Hawk had more opportunity to accumulate impressive air-to-air combat statistics due to numbers, timing, and location. 29 pages to get here, and my appreciation to everybody for their research efforts and disappointment with the nationalistic flag waving and insults.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well, I've been sitting on the sidelines watching this incredible schoolboy lunchroom food fight with my jaw hanging open, and all I've got to say is it's been part entertaining, part disgusting, and part educational.
It seems to me the Tiffie was a slightly higher performance aircraft with flaws, while the 'Hawk had more opportunity to accumulate impressive air-to-air combat statistics due to numbers, timing, and location. 29 pages to get here, and my appreciation to everybody for their research efforts and disappointment with the nationalistic flag waving and insults.
Cheers,
Wes

And that is exactly what it is. Very childish, and one of them cannot seem to drop it (Not you...)