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

Shortround6 · Dec 27, 2018

First, if this is a violation of the lock on the P-40 vs Typhoon thread I apologize and ask that it be deleted.

2nd, the only intent of this post is to show how different aircraft, being flown at the same time, in the same theater, by the same air force can have wildly different statistics due to the intend or assigned missions.

I am making no claims what so ever as to which planes were better at anything listed in the chart.

edit, originally posted by Timppa over two years ago, It was pointed out that these are claims and not verified results (at least as far as ground targets go) .

Greyman · Dec 28, 2018

What I was able to dig up on the Typhoon from skimming more of Christopher Shores' work on the 2nd Tactical Air Force:

For June-August 1944:

Typhoons destroyed by enemy fighters:

18 (possibly another 2) plus 1 destroyed in head-on collision with 109

Enemy fighters (claimed) destroyed by Typhoons:

2 x 190s destroyed, 9 x damaged

10 x 109s destroyed, 12 x damaged plus 1 destroyed in head-on collision

Timppa · Dec 29, 2018

Attached the article, where the table is from.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 31, 2018

Thread re-opened, and other thread merged...

fubar57 · Dec 31, 2018

Elmas · Dec 31, 2018

Frankly, I can't understand why the Congress did allow to spend an horryfing amount of money developing before and producing after such planes like P-38, P-47, P-61 and so on (not speaking of P-51, that had other Godfathers…) while AAF had those jack of all trades and aeronautical engineering wonders that were P-39 and P-40, perfectly capable to perform as interceptors, long range escorts, ground attack, night fighters, intruder catchers and, once navalised, just a minor matter, simply adding an arresting hook, could have perfectly substituted F6F and F4U for the Navy.

Truly a pity that in the post-war period they were not sent to combat to Korea and afterward re-proposed to the N.A.T.O., together with another timeless aircraft, Fiat CR-42.

Navalwarrior · Jan 1, 2019

Schweik said:
I'm not claiming - and never did, they were suitable for escorting B-17s over NW Europe. The issue is that the 'Trope' goes a bit too far and kind of relegates them to a tertiary status. I'm trying to explain the nuance. I wasn't trying to ding you so much as simply point out something that usually slips by unheeded.

Agreed

Agreed again.

Agree with that too, pretty much.

Well I think they did escort at about 20,000 feet and a bit more - keep in mind these were the Merlin P-40F/L, critical altitude somewhere around 19,500 ft, so some of them were flying high cover, usually one squadron out of three, and that could be as high as 25,000 or even a little higher, while they others would be down around 12 - 15,000 ft, closer to the medium bombers at 8-10,000 ft.

So I'm again, not trying to be pedantic I just want to make clear what their mission actually was - since few people are aware of it, namely escorting medium bombers at a fairly long distance (I'm not sure precisely how many miles I'd have to check where the bases were etc.) all by themselves without (necessarily) any higher cover from other fighters. The reason for this is the different characteristics of their main fighters.

They did of course also sometimes fly fighter bomber missions and low altitude sweeps with cover from Spitfires, or later from P-47s sometimes, but that wasn't their only mission despite the shorthand that you can read in dozens of books and websites that all they did in the Med was fighter bomber work from day one.

With history in general, it is in the shorthand where we tend to miss a lot of important nuance, and incidentally I kind of wonder if that is true for the Typhoon as well -for all it's faults it clearly was a dangerous weapon and if they claimed 80 or 90 Fw 190s they must have been flying some combat missions as a fighter not just a fighter bomber.

Resp:
In listening to a military history professor, Robert Citino said that attack aircraft, Particularly during D-Day of 6 June 1944 and after . . . destroyed much enemy equipment. The attacks were so successful, that the Germans resorted to moving at night. The Germans were considered the best military force at moving their men/equipment in a short period of time, but restricted such movement (when they could) to time of darkness. The Typhoon, as well as other allied aircraft should get its share of credit, even though it likely got fewer air-to-air kills vs the P-40. It may have been easier to keep records of air-to-air kills, but the destruction of ground forces from ground attack aircraft was just as important.

Schweik · Jan 2, 2019

Agreed but you could say the same about P-40Fs at Anzio and a lot of the other Allied fighting in Sicily and Italy, where several units like 324th FG were heavily involved in FB sorties. CAS is basically how they prevented the German counter attack from pushing them into the Sea at Anzio, and it was a role for which the P-40 in general was particularly well suited.

Schweik · Jan 2, 2019

Greyman said:
What I was able to dig up on the Typhoon from skimming more of Christopher Shores' work on the 2nd Tactical Air Force:

For June-August 1944:

Typhoons destroyed by enemy fighters:

18 (possibly another 2) plus 1 destroyed in head-on collision with 109
Enemy fighters (claimed) destroyed by Typhoons:

2 x 190s destroyed, 9 x damaged
10 x 109s destroyed, 12 x damaged plus 1 destroyed in head-on collision

Thanks for posting this. I believe I can show the same data for May - August 1943 for the P-40F via Shores. My computer is down right now and a new one is to be installed today or tomorrow. Once its up and running I'll post it.

Schweik · Jan 2, 2019

Elmas said:
Frankly, I can't understand why the Congress did allow to spend an horryfing amount of money developing before and producing after such planes like P-38, P-47, P-61 and so on (not speaking of P-51, that had other Godfathers…) while AAF had those jack of all trades and aeronautical engineering wonders that were P-39 and P-40, perfectly capable to perform as interceptors, long range escorts, ground attack, night fighters, intruder catchers and, once navalised, just a minor matter, simply adding an arresting hook, could have perfectly substituted F6F and F4U for the Navy.

Truly a pity that in the post-war period they were not sent to combat to Korea and afterward re-proposed to the N.A.T.O., together with another timeless aircraft, Fiat CR-42.

Pardon the typos as I'm typing this on my phone.

Show me a case where CR 42s were shooting down Bf 109s and MC 205s at a ratio of 5-1 (or Spitfires, or P-40s, or even P-39s) and I'll re-evaluate my opinion of that mighty biplane.

I think it did have its day back in 1940 in North Africa and Greece against Gladiators. They also did shoot down some Hurricanes in North Africa and over Malta too.

I get the joke but to be real, I think the CR 42 and CR 32 did have interesting combat histories and did quite well in their day. I don't think World War II Aviation begins and ends with bomber escorts over Berlin or the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Nor was the Early War confined to the Battle of Britain.

I know we all have opinions about a lot of things we believe we know the history already but if that was really true what would be the point of a forum like this? If Everything's already been figured out about WW2 air combat we woukd have little to discuss.

Volume four of Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War just came out in November. I believe it does tell us some new things about the war in that area that defy some of the shorthand we had come to accept. I believe the Black Star Red Cross series is still in progress as well. Just a couple examples of major sources of information that we really haven't digested yet.

Of course if you already know then by all means spread the news, I'm eager to learn. Been trying to figure out everything I could of World War II fighter combat since I was 12 years old and that's a lot longer ago than I care to even think about.

Elmas · Jan 2, 2019

Frankly, I can't understand why the Congress did allow to spend an horryfing amount of money developing before and producing after such planes like P-38, P-47, P-61 and so on (not speaking of P-51, that had other Godfathers…) while AAF had those jack of all trades and aeronautical engineering wonders that were P-39 and P-40, perfectly capable to perform as interceptors, long range escorts, ground attack, night fighters, intruder catchers and, once navalised, just a minor matter, simply adding an arresting hook, could have perfectly substituted F6F and F4U for the Navy.

Truly a pity that in the post-war period they were not sent to combat to Korea and afterward re-proposed to the N.A.T.O., together with another timeless aircraft, Fiat CR-42.

Navalwarrior · Jan 2, 2019

Schweik said:
Agreed but you could say the same about P-40Fs at Anzio and a lot of the other Allied fighting in Sicily and Italy, where several units like 324th FG were heavily involved in FB sorties. CAS is basically how they prevented the German counter attack from pushing them into the Sea at Anzio, and it was a role for which the P-40 in general was particularly well suited.

Resp:
You sure can include the P-40, as well as the A-36 and P-47. But by 1944 the P-40 was quickly being replaced by the P-47. So one could also compare the Typhoon against the P-47.

wuzak · Jan 2, 2019

Schweik said:
Agreed but you could say the same about P-40Fs at Anzio and a lot of the other Allied fighting in Sicily and Italy, where several units like 324th FG were heavily involved in FB sorties. CAS is basically how they prevented the German counter attack from pushing them into the Sea at Anzio, and it was a role for which the P-40 in general was particularly well suited.

"Well suited" in that they had thousands of P-40s and had to find them something they could do?

Shortround6 · Jan 2, 2019

wuzak said:
"Well suited" in that they had thousands of P-40s and had to find them something they could do?

The P-39s were already flying coastal patrol

Schweik · Jan 2, 2019

So now you are arguing that the P-40 wasn't a good fighter bomber? Lol I think you are the ones taking the outlier position now.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Jan 2, 2019

Sigh...

pbehn · Jan 2, 2019

Schweik said:
So now you are arguing that the P-40 wasn't a good fighter bomber? Lol I think you are the ones taking the outlier position now.

The P51 was promised to be a better fighter than the P-40 and it was. The USA had two factories producing P-51B and Cs which were in service in Europe from mid 1943. That relegated the P-40 to secondary roles in the USA inventory for that type of aircraft.

Schweik · Jan 2, 2019

Be that as it may, P-40s were simultaneously shooting down Axis fighters and wrecking Axis weapons and materiel at Salerno and Anzio just like Typhoons did at Normandy. Except P-40 units were also shooting down plenty of messerschmits in the process.

pbehn · Jan 2, 2019

Schweik said:
Be that as it may, P-40s were simultaneously shooting down Axis fighters and wrecking Axis weapons and materiel at Salerno and Anzio just like Typhoons did at Normandy. Except P-40 units were also shooting down plenty of messerschmits in the process.

The fall of Rome to allied troops on 5th June 1944 was completely overshadowed by D-Day operations
.

fubar57 · Jan 2, 2019

Tick......tick........tick......

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

P-40 or Typhoon

P-40

Typhoon

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Attachments

Private Chemtrail Disperser

General

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Banned

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Captain

Major General

Banned

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Colonel

Banned

Colonel

General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads