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

Losses

From the same book I have 104 aircraft claimed shot down by P-40s as of Feb 10 '44. There are others after that as well but I'm into it right now

My main point in posting all this was the ground attack records. I think the air to air claims and losses also speak for themselves. I have double checked some of the claims in Cheistopher Shores, for example June 7 and June 10. I'll link those posts later.

fubar57 said:

"Combat History of the 79th Fighter Group 1942-1945" lists the changeover as complete in April '44 in time for the "Rome push". As for the aircraft carrier destroyed, this is listed in the actions of June 2nd. I don't think this is an actual aircraft carrier but something that is carrying an aircraft, possibly a barge with a damaged aircraft on board

Click to expand...

I think it may have been this thing, listed as 'damaged ' on June 16

Italian aircraft carrier Aquila - Wikipedia

I thought the main point of the thread title was which was the best fighter

fubar57 said:

I thought the main point of the thread title was which was the best fighter

Click to expand...

I think that is already clear, and of coutse these records also speak to that.

But I was replying specifically to several comments posted about the fighter bomber & CAS role right before I posted the pages from the book.

The book those pages are from is called The 79th Fighter Group over Tunisia Sicily and Italy in WW 2 by Don Worpel, Schiffer military history 2001

I have the book. Mine was posted from this book, dated 1947, 288 pages...

Neat! Time to hit up Abe books...

wuzak said:

I think the P-40 had more impact during the war, mainly because it was there when it was needed.

The Typhoon was largely a bit player in WW2. Its role was significant in certain periods, but overall it wasn't a big contribution.

That said, the Typhoon was still a better fighter, and definitely was a better fighter-bomber.

Click to expand...

Resp:
Numbers used by the Allies defined the P-40's significance.

The clear advantage of the Typhoon was that it used a Sabre engine. That isn't saying the sabre engine was any good, but if the Typhoon/Tempest used another 2000 BPH engine some other plane wouldn't be.

Schweik said:

I think that is already clear, and of coutse these records also speak to that.

Click to expand...

I think it was already clear, but you keep posting reports of victories of P-40Fs in air-to-air and don't ever consider the disadvantage that the Typhoon had in that role - ie, it wasn't used for that long in that role, in small numbers and with little enemy contact.

I think it was established that there were about 30 squadrons that operated the Typhoon. IIRC there were 12 aircraft in a squadron, which would make it 360 in service. Assuming they were serviceable.

Even if it was 20 to a squadron, that is still only 600. Compared to 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls made (obviously not all were operational).

The majority of Typhoon squadrons operated in roles other than air superiority. In fact, it appears only two squadrons operated as pure fighter squadrons, and only for 9 months.

There is much more to the story of aerial victory counts than how good the aircraft was. If you seldom met the enemy in combat, you aren't going to run up huge victory numbers.

Elmas said:

Considering:

that the whole production of Macchi 202 was on the whole less than 1200 units at best (between 1100 and 1200, actually);

that Alfa Romeo never produced more than 50 DB 601/month, at the best;

that Macchi 202 were deployed from 1941 in Libya, over Malta, in Russia and then in Sicily and Sardinia and were used in the advanced flying schools, and a couple of dozens were given to Croatia,

that in 1943 the production of this airplane was vastly reduced for the lack of raw materials and then completely stopped to build Macchi 205;

that a couple of dozens were used by Aeronautica Repubblicana and by Aeronautica Cobelligerante, and some even survived the War;

all of this premised and considered

I think the claims of all Allied Squadron fighters in 1943 for this plane are probably three or four times (if not five) the number actually present on the War theater…

Click to expand...

Christopher Shores MAW series checks all these claims and many others against Italian records. An Italian researcher named Giovanni Massimello is also listed as co-author.

Many of the specific claims by the 79th FG can be verified by those very same Italian records. Of course there was overclaiming, always was by all nations at some ratio or another, but many of these claims are real. By the time 79th FG was in action incidentally the MC 205s were active against Allied Air forces and were part of the fight. There were some G.55s mentioned as well though I don't know that any P-40 units shot any of those down. It is true however that MC 202 were confused for Bf 109s and vice versa.

For example during the heavy fighting of Pantelleria, on June 7 1943, 57th FG (P-40F) pilots claimed 2 x Bf 109 and 79th FG pilots claimed 2 x MC 202, B-17 gunners claimed 6, an RAF Mustang III claimed a twin engine float plane and two American Spitfires of 31 FG jointly claimed a Bf 109. Germans claimed 2 x P-40s and a P-38). Allied losses that day included an A-36 and a P-38G. According to German records they lost 5 x Bf 109s - 3 specifically to fighters (one specifically to a P-40) and 2 to B-17 gunners, and the Italians lost a CANT Z.506.

June 8, 1943, 79th FG P-40F pilots claimed 6 enemy fighters (Bf 109 and MC 202), 52nd FG Spitfires claimed 1, 1st FG P-38s claimed 1. Italian pilots claimed 8 Spitfires and 1 x P 38 Actual losses were 2 x MC 205 and 3 x MC 202 and no Allied fighters. Even if you assume 2 were lost to the Spit and P 38, that leaves 3 for the P 40s for no losses. So that is a ratio of 7 claims for 5 actual losses.

June 10, 1943 - Allied fighter pilots made 35 claims that day:

185 sqn RAF (Spitfire IX) claimed 2
307 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 5
309 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 6
309 fs / 31 FG (Spitfire) claimed 1 later on

Thats 14

325 FG (P-40F) claimed 5 fighters
79th FG (P-40F) claimed 16 fighters

Thats 21

Actual Axis losses according to German and Italian records were 23 fighters: 15 x Bf 109s (13 from JG 27, 2 from JG53, and 1 from 2 (H)/14) and 8x MC 202. So the ratio here is 35 for 23

This is all in Christopher Shores MAW Volume IV pp 73 - 84. .



For the record, I think the MC 202 was an excellent fighter, the MC 205 even better, and the G.55 and Re 2005 two of the best fighters ever made in WW2. There is no doubt from those same records that MC 202 pilots shot down quite a large number of Spitfires, P-40s, Hurricanes, P-38s and various Allied bombers.

I believe they only sent a very small number to Russia, one or two squadrons right?

wuzak said:

I think it was already clear, but you keep posting reports of victories of P-40Fs in air-to-air and don't ever consider the disadvantage that the Typhoon had in that role - ie, it wasn't used for that long in that role, in small numbers and with little enemy contact.

I think it was established that there were about 30 squadrons that operated the Typhoon. IIRC there were 12 aircraft in a squadron, which would make it 360 in service. Assuming they were serviceable.

Even if it was 20 to a squadron, that is still only 600. Compared to 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls made (obviously not all were operational).

Click to expand...

Yes but you are being quite selective yourself, you transform 3,000 Typhoons into 360 or 600 based on 30 squadrons, but somehow 2,000 merlin P-40s remain the same number? The biggest ommission here is that there were no more than 21 or 22 P-40F / L squadrons in service at any one time ....

The majority of Typhoon squadrons operated in roles other than air superiority. In fact, it appears only two squadrons operated as pure fighter squadrons, and only for 9 months.

There is much more to the story of aerial victory counts than how good the aircraft was. If you seldom met the enemy in combat, you aren't going to run up huge victory numbers.

Click to expand...

... and they too also mostly performed fighter bomber missions (see the stats for 79th FG above). Only one unit - 325FG- predominantly flew air superiority missions - and as I pointed out, they racked up all their P-40 victories in a mere 4 months, from May to August 1943. Most P-40 units were used for mixed types of sorties, at least two 324th FG and 27 FB group (which I just 'discovered' had switched from A-36 to P-40 for a few months in 1944) flew almost exclusively FB missions, though they still made some air to air claims.

The numbers are actually surprisingly equivalent. For both the P-40F and the Typhoon, 1943 was their most active year in terms of squadrons in the field. They were both limited to low to medium altitude in terms of performance. They both fought similar opponents (note how many FW 190 claims are listed above). They had I think similar range and in both cases had to fly across the sea to get to their targets and back home again.

I think if we crunch the numbers a little more we'll find that P-40Fs suffered considerably fewer losses flying roughly the same kind of missions. Granted, AAA may have been more formidable in Europe, but the Wermacht and Luftwaffe were no slouch in Italy. Clearly the P-40F pilots scored a lot more air to air victories. The only thing remaining is to compare the number of fighter sorties and air to air combats with victories, verified claims where possible, and losses.




I think the Typhoon had some advantages. Clearly performance was much better. I suspect it was a better Fw 190 chaser and very important in that role during most of 1942 when the RAF had no other answer for the threat posed by the FW. Undoubtedly more capable of shooting down V-1s as well and that too was a uniquely valuable contribution. And of course, a lethal fighter bomber with rocket armament (which was eventually added to P-40s as well but not to the same effect I think).

The P-40 however does show up as more effective, more lethal, and more survivable than most people would have assumed. I believe this is due to a combination of it's excellent maneuverability (helpful both in air combat and in CAS), good low level speed and excellent dive performance which gave it the ability to disengage or chase, and of course it's much hyped toughness.

The Typhoon was forgiven many teething problems due to the promise of it's 2000 hp engine and its ability to chase down Fw 190s when Spit Vs couldn't do that job. The P-40 was not looked on with favor by Allied commanders and it was kept in combat through 1944 because it continued to surpass expectations. If they had taken the same kind of heavy losses as the Typhoon had they would have pulled it out of the line like the Hurricanes or relegated it to 'coastal patrol' like the P-39s.

Ultimately, the Typhoon led to the Tempest which was a world beater, and one of the best low altitude fighters ever made. This was the actual origin of this side debate - I was pointing out that low altitude fighters were 'a thing', and someone else who disagreed, mentioned off hand that the Typhoon was vastly better than a P-40. I think we can see here that they are at least comparable.

Incidentally normal squadron strength for the US P-40F/L units was 16, often in the field down to about 10-12 depending on maintenance.

I've posted this before but just for ease of reference, the squadrons using P-40F/L are as follows. The source is P-40 Aces of the MTO except where stated. I included the months of operations and number of victory claims by unit. The only one I don't have data for is the Pacific Theater squadron or squadrons (still not sure if it was one or two).

33rd FG (3 squadrons, 137 victories, Nov 42 - Feb 44)
57th FG (3 squadrons*, 144 victories, Aug 42 - Jan 44)
325th FG (3 squadrons, 133 victories, Apr 43 - Oct 43 )
324th FG (3 squadrons, 66 victories, March 43 - July 44)
79th FG (3 squadrons, 118 victories, Dec 42 - March 44)
99th FS (1 squadron / independent - Tuskegee, 17 victories, June 43 - June 44)
27th FBG (3 squadrons**, 0 victories, Feb 44 to June 44)
RAF 260 Sqn (1 squadron, 23 victories - source, Feb 42 to Nov 42)
RAAF 3 Sqn (1 squadron, 19 victories - source, Sept 42 to March 44)
Free French GC II/5 (2 squadrons, 8 P-40 victories according to this, July 43- Sept 43)
49th FG? (Pacific Theater 1-2 squadrons, don't know the number of P-40F claims or how long they were used)

Total number of squadrons is 25 but the most active at any one time was 20 squadrons in June of 43 by my estimate.

The RAF squadrons also used Kittyhawk III's (which could be either P-40K or M) at the same time, though the listed victories are for the Kittyhawk II / P-40F or L)

Total victories for all the P-40F / L units in the Med are 665 by my count. Most of these are during Nov 42 - August 43. About 90% of these claims are for fighters, primarily Bf 109 and MC 202.

* one of their 3 squadrons flew P-40Ks for a while
** by the time they had switched over from the A-36 to the P-40 57th and 325 FG were converted to P-47s

20 squadrons means about ~300 P-40F / Ls active on operations on a given day.

wuzak said:

I think it was already clear, but you keep posting reports of victories of P-40Fs in air-to-air and don't ever consider the disadvantage that the Typhoon had in that role - ie, it wasn't used for that long in that role, in small numbers and with little enemy contact.

I think it was established that there were about 30 squadrons that operated the Typhoon. IIRC there were 12 aircraft in a squadron, which would make it 360 in service. Assuming they were serviceable.

Even if it was 20 to a squadron, that is still only 600. Compared to 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls made (obviously not all were operational).

The majority of Typhoon squadrons operated in roles other than air superiority. In fact, it appears only two squadrons operated as pure fighter squadrons, and only for 9 months.

There is much more to the story of aerial victory counts than how good the aircraft was. If you seldom met the enemy in combat, you aren't going to run up huge victory numbers.

Click to expand...

Well said, and all of this obviously being ignored.

Using claims to determine an aircraft is better is ridiculous. There are far too many variables being ignored. Using his logic the Bf 109 is the greatest thing ever to fly as it shot down more aircraft than any other type.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Well said, and all of this obviously being ignored.

Using claims to determine an aircraft is better is ridiculous. There are far too many variables being ignored. Using his logic the Bf 109 is the greatest thing ever to fly as it shot down more aircraft than any other type.

Click to expand...

Please see post 634 on this. I'm not doing anything nearly as crude as you are suggesting.

This thread examines the combat history of the two aircraft during the same period of time. And the more we looked at their combat history the more remarkably similar they appear to be.

It turns out that roughly 300 aircraft in both cases were active at the same time (Mid 1943) and they flew roughly the same kinds of missions, i.e. some fighter missions but mostly bomber or interdiction. Both the P-40 F / L and the Typhoon had a small number of squadrons flying mostly 'pure' fighter missions (3 for the P-40F and 2 for the Typhoon) and in both cases for a short time (4 months for the P-40F and 9 months for the Typhoon). Both were flying over the sea to and from their targets. The threat environment may have been a little greater in NW Europe than Italy or it may have been close to equivalent, (the former including the notion that there were fewer fighters to contend with).

Comparing claims, verified victories and losses for very similar missions for a nearly identical number of aircraft at the same time against the same enemy aircraft is not the same as just comparing total victories without any consideration of context. In this case the context appears very similar to me.

I'm not saying that the Operational History is the only measure of which is the better fighter, performance and maneuverability, reliability and maintenance, armament and other equipment also matter. I'm just saying that the Operational History is part of the story, as another poster noted, ultimately it is how well the aircraft does in action against the enemy that really matters.

Ask yourself honestly, if the Typhoon had scored more victory claims than the P-40F in the same time period, would that have been noted in this thread? Perhaps heavily emphasized?

Schweik said:

Please see post 634 on this. I'm not doing anything nearly as crude as you are suggesting.

This thread examines the combat history of the two aircraft during the same period of time. And the more we looked at their combat history the more remarkably similar they appear to be.

It turns out that roughly 300 aircraft in both cases were active at the same time (Mid 1943) and they flew roughly the same kinds of missions, i.e. some fighter missions but mostly bomber or interdiction. Both the P-40 F / L and the Typhoon had a small number of squadrons flying mostly 'pure' fighter missions (3 for the P-40F and 2 for the Typhoon) and in both cases for a short time (4 months for the P-40F and 9 months for the Typhoon). Both were flying over the sea to and from their targets. The threat environment may have been a little greater in NW Europe than Italy or it may have been close to equivalent, (the former including the notion that there were fewer fighters to contend with).

Comparing claims, verified victories and losses for very similar missions for a nearly identical number of aircraft at the same time against the same enemy aircraft is not the same as just comparing total victories without any consideration of context. In this case the context appears very similar to me.

I'm not saying that the Operational History is the only measure of which is the better fighter, performance and maneuverability, reliability and maintenance, armament and other equipment also matter. I'm just saying that the Operational History is part of the story, as another poster noted, ultimately it is how well the aircraft does in action against the enemy that really matters.

Click to expand...

No that is exactly what you are doing.

What were the mission perameters? What were the squadron orders? What were the enemy aircraft's orders. How many aircraft were contacted. What type of aircraft were contacted, and what was it's mission perameter during contact? Was the aircraft ordered to carry out ground attack, while another fighter type was ordered for air superiority top cover?

Loss statistics mean nothing except that a particular aircraft was killed on a particular date.

You are being overly simple and black and white in your very agenda biased research, which is onviously only telling you what you want to hear to begin with.