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

P-40 or Typhoon

  • Total voters
    25

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
fubar57 said:
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........"
Click to expand...


I see your article and raise you a more detailed one from the same site:

Part 2

Nikolay Gerasimovich, how would you evaluate the speed, rate of climb, acceleration, and maneuverability of the P-40? Did it suit you?

N. G. I say again, the P-40 significantly outclassed the Hurricane, and it was far and away above the I-16.

Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the tactical and technical characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf-109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better.

Its speed and vertical and horizontal maneuver were good. It was fully competitive with enemy aircraft.

As for acceleration, the P-40 was a bit heavy, but when one had adjusted to the engine, it was normal.

When the later types Bf-109G and FW-190 appeared, the P-40 Kittyhawk became somewhat dated, but not by much. An experienced pilot could fight an equal fight with it.


Of course, Golodnikov never got to fly the most effective variant, the Merlin engined P-40F or L.
 


As for other Theaters, as just one example - see if you can count which fighter type claimed the most victories in Australian service in 1944

Pacific Victory Roll - Sep 43 - Jul 45
 


Generally, in Russia, the P-40 was an important part of their arsenal in 1942 and 1943, the latter year in particular saw a lot of Soviet Aces scoring well particularly in P-40Ks, but by the third quarter it was indeed eclipsed by the locally made types. The Yak series production issues had been largely straightened out by mid '43 and more important from the Russian point of view, the La 5FN was ideal for their needs. They also still liked the P-39 (which they preferred over the P-40 and all other Lend Lease types) well into '44. The Soviets had over 40 P-40 Aces with 3 double Hero of the Soviet Union awards given to P-40 pilots. Most P-40 units became 'Guards' squadrons over time and were switched to Yak or La 5 series.

This is the end of that P-40 in Soviet Aviation article you linked: "Altogether the VVS VMF USSR received 360 P-40s of all models from 1941-1945, and lost 66 in combat (18 percent), the lowest loss percentage among fighters of all types. In conclusion, one fact should be noted: three Twice HSU (of 27) in Soviet aviation fought in the Kittyhawk: B. F. Safonov, P. A. Pokryshev (22 personal victories and 7 in group), and M. V. Kuznetsov (22 + 6). Pokryshev and Kuznetsov flew the Kittyhawk for more than a year. Many pilots became aces and HSU while flying the P-40, achieving good combat scores. A number of regiments gained their guards status while flying the P-40. On the whole this aircraft fought well, though the conceptual errors that were built into it significantly reduced the sphere of its effective employment."



In the Med 4 out of the 5 US P-40 Fighter Groups had high scores and excellent kill ratios in the first half of 1943 (borne out by Axis data), but by mid 1943 the Spit IX and (rarer but more useful) Spit VIII were clearly dominant over German fighters and the P-47 and P-38, and A-36 were also available in numbers, though not doing fantastic in air combat against the Luftwaffe. P-40F/L were still needed for medium bomber escorts and CAS through the end of 43. They seem to have had a lower loss rate than the other US types and the Spit IXs had limited range. P-40s were still scoring kills during Anzio in Jan / Feb '44, after which they were mostly used for FB.

The Americans had 18 P-40 Aces in the Med, and the RAF / Commonwealth had 46 (including 11 double aces on the P-40)



In the Pacific, per Robert DeHaven, range was basically the limitation on the P-40 and while they played a critical role in 1942, by mid 43 they were mostly being used for CAP etc., a little bit on raids. The Hellcat and the P-38 were the dominant fighters there. But P-40s were still shooting down significant numbers of enemy fighters in 1944. There were 30 US P-40 Aces in the Pacific plus I'm not sure how many Australian and New Zealand.



In the CBI the P-40K, M and N were the most effective fighters in the Theater. Shot down by far the most (over 900) enemy planes etc. There were 38 US P-40 Aces in the CBI (including 6 double Aces in the 23rd FG alone), plus 23 AVG aces and 3 Chinese.


In all of those Theaters on paper the P-40 should have been inferior by say, mid 1942 at the latest. But they turned out to have merits that were harder to precisely define than rate of climb or top speed. That is one of the things I've tried to figure out. It is however the real reason why they kept producing so many of them and why they were in such wide use. To some extent I think it came down to training and familiarity - tactics were developed for fighting the Japanese or the Germans and Italians by mid 1942 which were effective and remained effective.
 
Last edited:
Schweik said:
I really don't appreciate that.
Click to expand...

Fine with me...

Many have grown tired of your snide trolling comments. It goes both ways. What gives you the right to insert your trolling comments into your posts, and not expect it in return. We have been down this road before. Snide comments are sprinkled all through your "informational posts". Treat others as you want to be treated.
 

I was responding to this exchange with 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. "

All of this had already been covered repeatedly in the thread. We were not talking about Allison engined P-40s or the Soviet. I assumed he was joking (Trolling) as there was a lot of that in the last couple of pages. If he was serious than I apologize.

In case he was, I answered anyway providing data. I can take a joke (and I posted a couple of joke posts as well) but I am also trying to seriously address a lot of comments many of which aren't 100% on the level. That is what I meant.
 
Keep in mind, sometimes what may be written as a 'lite joke' can come across as a snide comment in a forum or via text. I am trying to do that myself.
 



By coincidence those are the two highest scoring P-40 units in the MTO
 
I asked a legitimate question in regards to the comment about the comment stating that the P-40 inflicting considerable damage in 1944 and I get stats (that appear to be a blend of ground kills and aerial kills) from 1943.
We get it that you like the P-40, that's great, but the fact of the matter is that being an older type, it's glory days came and went by mid-war. Curtiss went to great lengths (like Messerschmitt did with the 109) to keep the P-40 (or a derivitave) at the forfront, but there were other types that emerged to take the lead.
Back to 1944, the airwar in northwestern Europe had evolved into a war of attrition, where long-range escorts were drawing the Luftwaffe up into large-scale battles. *IF* the P-40 were the flying miracle as it's been alledged, then where was the P-40 in all of this? I have yet to read ANY instance of a P-40 escorting B-17s or B-24s into Germany (or France or the low countries) and I certainly have not read any accounts of the P-40 escorting any medium bombers on raids over the continent.

Sorry...that's not trolling, that's simply asking for details to back a specific claim.

By the way, in regards to the comment, "Даже Сталин не может изменить историю, товарищ" (nice Russian translator work, the syntax was pretty close, by the way), he most certainly did and he did it most often by altering the textbooks (facts) when it suited him.
 
GrauGeist said:
I asked a legitimate question in regards to the comment about the comment stating that the P-40 inflicting considerable damage in 1944 and I get stats (that appear to be a blend of ground kills and aerial kills) from 1943.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I don't believe I posted any "ground kills from 1943" that is complete nonsense. If you are referring to the scan of the page from the 79th FG squadron history page that I linked that is mostly air to air kills (and some probables etc.) from 1944.

The summaries I posted from 1943 are simply because in 1943 there were several significant combats between US P-40 units and Axis fighters in the Med where either no other aircraft were involved, or only P-40 claims matched the Axis losses. These were 100% air to air losses, for example the July 30 combat where 6 Bf 109s were shot down for 1 P-40. I can give you the serial numbers of the lost planes if you need them.

By 1944 almost all combats involved multiple types of Allied fighters, so it makes it hard to determine let alone prove which fighter was responsible for which victory. I can see days where Spitfire pilots, P-40 pilots, P-47 pilots and A-36 pilots all made claims, and that the Germans lost 5 or 10 Bf 109s or Fw 190s or whatever, but it's really hard to say which fighters were shot down by what Allied plane. However I can give you some specific examples from Axis records where they mention losses to the P-40 during Anzio:

Jan 23 1944 - FW 190G-3 5./SG 4 "lost in combat with P-40s"
Jan 24 1944 - FW 190G-3 5./SG 4 "lost in combat with P-40"
Jan 25 1944 - FW 190G-3 6./SG 4 "lost in combat with P-40"

Of course, they usually just say "lost in combat" without indicating by what enemy plane, or "shot down by fighters" or "crashed on landing after battle damage" or just "MIA" and often misattribute who shot them down anyway, but there are many losses that match the claims from that 79th FG history I posted earlier.

  • There was more to air combat in WW2 than bomber escort in NW Europe. In fact you could make the argument that by the time B-17s were flying large scale raids into Germany the outcome of the war was already decided. Yes there was an important war of attrition regardless, and no P-40s would not have been useful in that role. But there was plenty of use for a low / mid altitude fighter in other Theaters.
  • I never claimed the P-40 was a "flying miracle" and never claimed that it could escort B-17s or B-24s on high altitude raids. For the record, it would have been useless in that role. I just said it was a bit better and for a longer time than has been assumed. (and they did escort some B-17s and B-24s at lower altitude in the MTO though the P-38 was better for that role).
  • P-40s certainly did however escort quite a few medium bomber raids over the Continent if by the Continent you include Italy, Southern France, Yugoslavia etc., in fact as I already pointed out that was the main mission of the 325th FG (they were attached to a B-26 bomber group as escort fighters). All of the other five US Fighter Groups flying P-40s also did those kinds of medium level escort missions.
I agree the P-40 peaked in usefulness in Europe (meaning Italy / MTO and Russia, not NW Europe where it wasn't used) somewhere in the mid-war, specifically I would say in the middle of 1943. But that is later than most people would guess. It remained in use in Italy as a fighter through mid 1944 and as a bomber (by the RAF) until 1945. In the China / Burma Theater it was still in use as an air superiority fighter into 1945, and in the Pacific through 1944.

What was specifically being debated was whether the Typhoon and P-40 could have done each others jobs, the former meaning low-level raids or interdictions over the Continent, and defensive sorties against Fw 190s etc. over England. It was suggested that P-40s would have gotten slaughtered in this purely speculative scenario. My objection to the claims being made was that they were facing the exact same aircraft, sometimes even the same units, in Italy.

Sorry...that's not trolling, that's simply asking for details to back a specific claim.
Click to expand...

No worries, I think maybe they merged two threads and that may explain why you missed some of this earlier.


Yes Stalin could alter text books, Soviet records, newspaper accounts (including old ones) but he couldn't change history. Now we can see some of the reality emerging. Guys like Golodnikov would not have been safe to say positive things about P-40s, Spitfires or P-39s while Stalin the world's greatest serial killer since Ghenghis Khan was alive.

Are you a native Russian speaker?

S
 
It's not a binary argument. It's not "P-40 was obsolete from day one" vs. "P-40 was the best fighter in WW2" I am no where near crazy enough to make such a suggestion. I'm pointing out that P-40, though flawed and limited by altitude performance, did surprisingly well in it's operational history through 1943 and even into 1944.

I've pointed this out before but maybe it merits reiteration - I don't rate the P-40 as the top fighter at any point in the war.

I would still say the Spitfire was the best fighter of the war overall, especially the Spit IX for those crucial mid-war years. Yak-9, La 5FN probably were the most important contributors to overall Allied victory over Germany because the Russian Front was so crucial to the demise of Nazi forces. P-39 was the most important Lend Lease fighter because the Soviets got so much use out of it.

P-51 became the most important fighter for the end of the war for a variety of reasons -certainly it wrought havoc on the Lufwaffe. The Hellcat was the most deadly aircraft in the Pacific. P-38 close behind. FW 190 probably owned 1942 as the best fighter of that year. Bf 109 and Zero were probably the best fighters in 1941 and MC 202 and Ki 43 were also excellent. Spitfire and Hurricane were crucial to the survival of England in the BoB and together played the most important role in 1940.

P-40 was always third or fourth in importance from it's introduction to combat in 1941. Only in the CBI, a Tertiary Theater, was it a dominant fighter. But as second fiddle it remained very useful for a lot longer than most realized, all over the world, and shot down a surprisingly large number of Axis aircraft. Combined US and British / Commonwealth claims add up to 2924.5 and that doesn't include Soviet victories. That puts it ahead of the Wildcat and the Corsair. If the Soviets managed at least 700-800 victories with the P-40 it would make the P-40 the third most important US made fighter after the P-51 and the Hellcat. Which isn't bad for a 1941 design that was supposed to be obsolete.
 
The P40 in Europe trying to do the same role as the Typhoon would have failed for the reasons I stated earlier.
a) It was too slow to catch the FW190 tip and run raiders
b) It was too slow to catch the V1
c) It was less well protected than the Typhoon and would have taken more losses for that reason
d) It was slower in the dive and would have found it much harder to escape from a Fw190
e) It didn't climb nearly as well as the Typhoon so would have lost the ability to dictate combat
f) It didn't have the same firepower as the Typhoon and would have less punch in the GA or fighter role
g) It didn't carry the same range of weapons as the Typhoon namely it lacked rockets
h) Being slower it would have taken more hits from AA fire then see (c)
I) It couldn't carry the same payload as the Typhoon further limiting is effectiveness
J) It cruised at a slower speed and would be easier to intercept

If I try hard I could probably add more but that is sufficient I think

PS this isn't tolling its trying to get an answer to valid points saying why the P40 would have suffered in this role. Your stock reply Because they did OK in the desert doesn't count because we are talking about how effective the P40 would have been over France and occupied territories. Where the role and the issues are very different.
 

resp:

Here is my problem with the above very convincing list of claims: With the exception of V-1 flying bombs, pilots flying P-40s faced exactly the same aircraft and shot them down, without taking heavy casualties. Which seems significant to me. Not just "over the desert" but over Italy, Yugoslavia, various Mediterranean Islands, and the South of France.

It also seemed to always have a low loss rate against both AAA and enemy aircraft which I think may have something to do with maneuverability. As noted above it apparently had the lowest loss rate of any fighter in Soviet use. I know my opinion counts for nada in here but just reviewing MAW IV it looks like P-40 losses were lower than most other Allied types.
 
pbehn said:
Yes England did well to survive the Battle of BRITAIN.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the issue is here, is it somehow offensive to say England instead of "Great Britain"? I have tried to be careful to typically indicate "RAF / Commonwealth" to include the important contributions of Australian, South African and New Zealand pilots. Is this something to do with Welsh or Scots pilots ? I admit I'm baffled.
 
Already said in a 3d about P-39...

The problem that all self-taught people have is clear: they always look for everything that confirms their opinions, and they totally refuse everything that refutes them.
Karl Popper's reading would be useful.
"Whenever a theory seems to you to be the only one possible, take it as a sign that you have not understood either the theory or the problem that you intended to solve."
(Karl Popper, Objective Knowledge: an evolutionary point of view.)
 
While I appreciate the philosophical advice, I am not suffering from confirmation bias. There is also an equivalent psychological effect for people who learn something new that they don't like the sound of initially.

12 Ways To Overcome Your Resistance To Change

I draw your attention to #3 from that list in particular:

"3. Ask Yourself What It Is You're Resisting

Resistance is a normal reaction, so acknowledge that it's OK. Then begin to overcome it by exploring, "What am I resisting?" Be specific and honest with yourself. Often, what we resist is categorized into what we can and cannot control. Focus on what you can control (including your gradual acceptance of the change and finding others who can help) and try to let go of what you can't control."

Sometimes it is helpful to at least consider ideas from outside of your group:

Psychology says that outsiders are the most innovative people

I am not some simple autodidact with a one track mind, I have just provided data to refute the numerous inaccuracies that came up in this specific argument and a couple of similar ones. I recognize a few people here find it very irritating. But it doesn't mean it's wrong, made up, cherry picked or fudged.

The origin of this data is not some obsession, but the publication of new data. Especially this book.
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Need info on 18th FG or other Guadalcanal P-40 units
Replies
12
Views
699
Steamed_Banana
S
A
Would any other designs like the Arado E.583, the Blohm & Voss P 215 or the Lippisch P.13a have been better than the Horten Ho 229?
Replies
1
Views
1K
bada
B
M
Alternate Approach to the P-38 Compressibility Problem
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
drgondog
Pinball P-39s
Replies
2
Views
611
fubar57
O
P-51s tricky to fly?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Mustangtmg
M
Menu
Log in
Register