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

[fubar57]

Good question. They had all those Typhoons sitting there in England and if they really weren't doing much, I don't know why they didn't send some to the Med. There was certainly a need for more fighters. Somebody mentioned they did send 2 or 3 for some kind of testing, I'd love to hear how it went. Maybe issues with the engine?

From Warpaint Series No. 5 "Hawker Typhoon""...The three modified aircraft were shipped out to North Africa, erected at Casablanca, and flown to Egypt for trials with No. 451 Squadron RAAF at Idku. Although the trials established the feasibility of operating Typhoons in these climates, build up of the 2nd TAF mean that none could be spared for the Desert Air Force. One further Typhoon, MN290 was sent to the Middle East for trials, arriving in Alexandria in October 1944, but the trials at Khartoum were abandoned after two cooler failures."

 

[fubar57]

Yeah you are right, there is some kind of magic dust in the air around the English Channel and Belgium which makes the same exact Bf 109s flown by the same Luftwaffe pilots who were dueling with 325th and 57th FG et all over Sardinia, Italy Yugoslavia and the South of France suddenly get ten times as fast, their turning circle shrinks to half the size, climb rate doubles, dive mach number rises to 2.6, their MG 151 doubled it's rate of fire and they carried three times as many shells with no weight gain, and their gunsights became gyroscopic.

If they shipped them back down to Italy or the Crimea of course everything went back to normal, and their outer wings were filled with sand..

The tropicalized version of the Bf 190F was slower than the standard Bf 190F by 6-7 km/h

 

[Glider]

As for how the P-40 would have fared in England, well the same question holds. They had basically ruled out P-40's for Northwest Europe around 1941 due to altitude limitations but in the low-altitude role the Typhoon was used for I don't see why they wouldn't have done at least as well.

Let see.
The first main use of the Typhoons was in intercepting the Fw190 on their tip and run raids. The P40F is about 60mph slower than the Typhoon at approx. 10,000ft so that will no doubt help the cause as the Fw190 seems to be about 30mph faster than the P40 at most altitudes.
Intercepting the V1 rockets again the slower speed on the P40 is no doubt an advantage.
GA missons again the much lower firepower would be of considerable assistance, plus of course the lower cruising speed will make it harder to intercept, its slower diving speed will ensure its survival when things get difficult and its much slower climb will help it make the most of any opportunities.
Finally the P40's lower protection will help it survive aa fire compared to the Typhoon and it less flexible GA weapons will add to the P40's effectiveness and in later years the reduced payload/range of the P40 would assist.

They used early P-40 / Tomahawks in an interdiction / recon mode for a little while from England,

A very little while, in fact they were replaced just as quickly as they could. I admit to not understanding why this happened seen as (according to your previous postings) a Tomahawk was more than capable of taking on an Me109F. Have you any ideas why the RAF did such an illogical thing?

I admit the above is more than a little sarcastic but the performance differences are unarguable and the roles fulfilled by the Typhoon are again accurate. Put the two together and any thought that the P40 could do them nearly as well is simply foolish.

 

[pbehn]

Not everything to do with shooting down a V1 was to do with speed, they were very small and very streamlined there were only a few things you could hit that would take it out, to hit them and take them down was difficult with MGs. Mosquitos at night got the second highest number of "kills" they certainly weren't the fastest in 1944 but they did have 4 fuselage mounted cannon.

 

[fubar57]

Not a lot to add to the discussion but I did find this interesting, from the 402 Squadron(RCAF) ORB...

 

[wuzak]

Good question. They had all those Typhoons sitting there in England and if they really weren't doing much, I don't know why they didn't send some to the Med. There was certainly a need for more fighters. Somebody mentioned they did send 2 or 3 for some kind of testing, I'd love to hear how it went. Maybe issues with the engine? How good were Typhoons against Bf 109s? That would be the main question. And MC 202 / 205s...

As far as the British were concerned, home defence got priority pick - and they chose Spitfires and Typhoons.

Overseas commands got what could be spared - which was Hurricanes and P-40s, until enough Spitfires had been built that they could be sent O/S.

I don't think that there were ever enough Typhoons that they could afford too many O/S.

 

[BiffF15]

Schweik,

I'm not in agreement with your hypothesis, however you have opened a chapter in the P40 I didn't realize it had. For that I'm grateful as the P40 has long been a favorite and I was a 325th FW guy many years ago (and a 33rd FW - both previous Warhawk units).

Cheers,
Biff

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Schweik,

I'm not in agreement with your hypothesis, however you have opened a chapter in the P40 I didn't realize it had. For that I'm grateful as the P40 has long been a favorite and I was a 325th FW guy many years ago (and a 33rd FW - both previous Warhawk units).

Cheers,
Biff

There is nothing wrong with the P-40. It was an excellent aircraft, and it held its own even when it was surpassed by better aircraft. I don't think anyone will ever dispute it. It still should not be put on a pedestal too high though.

 

[fubar57]

How about here....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Maybe just a little lower...

 

[slaterat]

The P-40 is just too slow and too poor climbing to be competitive in 43 Northern Europe. The RAF never had any confidence in the P-40 in Europe, they used Hurricanes up until mid 42 when they were rapidly replaced by Typhoons or moved to other theaters. You could make the same arguments for the Hurricane being better than the Typhoon as have been presented here for the p-40 > Typhoon debate, but honestly if you had too lock horns with a FW-190, and if you value your life, you would pick the Typhoon.

 

[michael rauls]

Please look at the chart in post #581.

Same Group (No 83) operating as part of the 2nd tactical air force operating in the same area, at the same time. 10 squadrons of Typhoons in over 11,000 sorties claim one German aircraft damaged. Either the Typhoon is the worst fighter of all time or the Spitfires and Mustangs were so good that the Typhoons never saw German fighters?
Or compare the Mustang IIIs to the Mustang Is. The Allison powered MK Is have an astronomical lower loss rate than the Merlin powered ones, but then they weren't flying the same missions even if flying in the same area at the same time.

The basic methodology of comparing planes shot down by similar numbers of planes deployed while interesting, is obviously flawed.
We need a lot deeper "Operational data" to draw any remotely valid conclusions. Even such simple stuff as the distances operating form base can affect the number losses vs the number of damaged planes that made it home. Just saying that both types operated over water (at times) doesn't quite cut it.

Very good point that there are so many variables that come into play when compairing any two planes as to make it difficult to draw any conclusions from said comparison. It seems to me that there are two basic approaches to address this conundrum one being to include all the variables of circumstance and try to wieght them in some manner or more simply and in my view more practically draw the comparison from the most similar circumstances posible i.e. missions with a great degree of similarities. And while of course it could never be perfect it seems like if that condition were met one could draw about as valid conclusion about the comparison as would ever be possible.

 

[Schweik]

The P-40 is just too slow and too poor climbing to be competitive in 43 Northern Europe. The RAF never had any confidence in the P-40 in Europe, they used Hurricanes up until mid 42 when they were rapidly replaced by Typhoons or moved to other theaters. You could make the same arguments for the Hurricane being better than the Typhoon as have been presented here for the p-40 > Typhoon debate, but honestly if you had too lock horns with a FW-190, and if you value your life, you would pick the Typhoon.

Just FYI Hurricanes were slaughtered in air combat in the Med in 42 and were basically phased out in early 43.

P 40s meanwhile were still shooting down Axis fighters in large numbers into 44.

They were a lot faster than Hurricanes, could divw much faster and could roll as well as turn. Which apparently made a difference in combat.

I don't get why the Ludtwaffe would have been more dangerous for P-40s over Belgium than over Salerno. Same planes, same pilots right?

 

[GrauGeist]

P 40s meanwhile were still shooting down Axis fighters in large numbers into 44.

I really have to ask the question: where?
The bulk of the air war in '44 was at higher altitudes than the P-40 was suitable at.

Are you perhaps referring to Soviet P-40s on the Eastern Front? The average altitude would have been more favorable to the Allison's performance, but by 1944, the VVS was recieving newer (native) Soviet types that would out-perform the P-40, so I can't see the Curtiss being used in any significant numbers.

 

[fubar57]

P-40 in Russia The P-40 in Soviet Aviation The second paragraph begins "The Kittyhawk was considered an "average" aircraft in the Soviet VVS........"

 

[GrauGeist]

P-40 in Russia The P-40 in Soviet Aviation The second paragraph begins "The Kittyhawk was considered an "average" aircraft in the Soviet VVS........"

В Съветска Русия P-40 ви лети !!

 

[Schweik]

I really have to ask the question: where?
The bulk of the air war in '44 was at higher altitudes than the P-40 was suitable at.

Are you perhaps referring to Soviet P-40s on the Eastern Front? The average altitude would have been more favorable to the Allison's performance, but by 1944, the VVS was recieving newer (native) Soviet types that would out-perform the P-40, so I can't see the Curtiss being used in any significant numbers.

Read the thread a little.

Italy / Med

Not Allison emgine

 

[fubar57]

The thread title was lost after the first page

 

[Elmas]

"The Typhoons, in spite of the two 1,000-lb bombs under their wings, were setting a crackimg pace and we had a job to keep up with them."

Pierre Clostermann, the Big Show. Pag. 91.

And Clostermann was flying Spitfire IX. What would have happened if the escort was composed of P-40s? "Please, Typhoons, please, a little bit slower..."

 

[Schweik]

I really have to ask the question: where?
The bulk of the air war in '44 was at higher altitudes than the P-40 was suitable at.

Are you perhaps referring to Soviet P-40s on the Eastern Front? The average altitude would have been more favorable to the Allison's performance, but by 1944, the VVS was recieving newer (native) Soviet types that would out-perform the P-40, so I can't see the Curtiss being used in any significant numbers.

See this post, screenshot of P-40 victories in 1944 from the unit history just one Fighter Group.

1943 was the stand out year for the P-40 in warfare against the Luftwaffe, Merlin engined P-40F and Ls routinely shot down large numbers of Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica Fighters, it's quite well documented by the Germans and Italians themselves.

I really never get tired of posting this data so you can troll to your hearts desire. Some examples:

June 8 1943 - 3 MC 205 and 202 lost / 0 P-40Fs lost
June 10 1943 - 9 Bf 109s lost / 2 P-40Fs lost
July 8 1943 - 5 x German Bf 109G-6 lost and 1 x Italian Bf 109G lost / 3 P-40s lost
July 22 1943 - 4 x MC 205 shot down, (+ 2 x 205 'shot up by P-40s') 3 x MC 202 & 1 X D.520 shot down , Ca 309 shot down / 2 x P40 lost
July 26 1943 - 2 x Bf 109G shot down, 1 x MC 205 (+1 205 'shot up by fighters') / 0 P-40s lost
July 30 1943 - 6 x Bf 109G Shot down / 1 P-40 shot down

So far I only found one day where the Merlin engined P-40 units got defeated by a similar ratio which was in February 1943.

Now, when all these sarcastic claims are made about how slow and pathetic the P-40 was ensuring it would have been doomed in combat in NW Europe, I ask again, are there some other types of German fighters? Were they attacking Dover with Me 262 ? Did the Ta 152 have some surge in activity I never heard about?