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

[pbehn]

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.

England ceased to be a political or military entity with the act of union in 1707. It would actually make more sense to say Britain survived the battle of England or Kent, as Kent would be where any landing took place. It isn't offensive it is just wrong/inaccurate, its easy to get confused sometimes but I would have thought it easy to understand that the Battle of Britain was about the survival of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, England does not appear.

 

[Shortround6]

Shooting down FW 190s that are trying to intercept the bombers you are escorting (even if the bombers are other P-40s) is different than shooting down tip and run raiders, They have no interest in combat. They want to get in, drop the bomb and get out. Now if we look hard enough we can find that probably a number of aircraft happened to shoot down one or more tip and run raiders simply by being in the right place at the right time, doesn't mean they were good at it.

If the Typhoon is better than the Spitfire of the same time and if the Spitfire is as fast as the P-40 why are we to believe the P-40 can do what the Spitfire cannot do on a consistent basis as far as chasing down tip and run raiders.

We also seen to be spreading the time line out. The Early Typhoons employed against the tip and run raiders had pretty much standard protection.(self sealing tanks BP windscreen some armor behind the seat and perhaps another piece or two) By the time of Normandy they Typhoons doing the bombing and rocketing had hundreds of extra pounds of armor. But hey, the P-40 is more maneuverable and doesn't need armor against ground fire because it is a harder target? While flying slower?
Since the Typhoon was never used in Italy we don't know it's survival rate against AA in that theater.

And before we start up with the the Germans used the same AA guns in both theaters, it isn't so much the guns but the quantity/scale of issue. Or perhaps it is better to say the number of AA guns per sq mi of territory flown over.

We also need to remember that while the channel was only 20 miles wide in one spot it was over 100 miles wide in a lot of other areas.
P-40s acting as fighter bombers may have had a much more restricted area of action than the Typhoons.


There were differences in the two theaters and it wasn't just escorting B-17/B-24s.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I have tried to be careful to typically indicate "RAF / Commonwealth" to include the important contributions of Australian, South African and New Zealand pilots.

Its easy to forget Canada, all tucked away down there...

 

[Schweik]

Its easy to forget Canada, all tucked away down there...

Lol... sorry, no offense to Canada, the (arguably) best P-40 pilot is from there James Edwards.

Canada, Northern Ireland, Wales, England, the Isle of Man. Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda, South Africa, Rhodesia, and the British Virgin Islands. Were there any Indian pilots?

I'll just write UK / Commonwealth from now on.

 

[pbehn]

Lol... sorry, no offense to Canada, the (arguably) best P-40 pilot is from there James Edwards.

Canada, Northern Ireland, Wales, England, the Isle of Man. Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda, South Africa, Rhodesia, and the British Virgin Islands. Were there any Indian pilots?

I'll just write UK / Commonwealth from now on.

You could ask yourself why you habitually write English in the first place, it cannot come from any reputable source. There were not only Indian pilots but also some from USA too, like Billy Fisk and John McGee. That is why its best just to say RAF. Last of the second world war Sikh RAF fighter pilots - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

 

[Schweik]

Yes but RAF doesn't include RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF or RSAF right? Some Colonials fought in the RAF but some fought in their own units too. In North Africa there were RAAF and RSAF squadrons and in the Pacific RNZAF. In the UK itself I believe there were RCAF Typhoon squadrons right?

I write "English" because it's common use where I live to describe people from the British Isles and their language, and it's also the correct term for the (far older) historical periods I'm most familiar with on a semi-professional basis. Of course your Islands have gone by many names and have had many different rulers over the centuries.

 

[Elmas]

Kentu concas kentu berrittas...
says a proverb of my Island...

and I refrain from mentioning a more sharp Neapolitan proverb...

 

[pbehn]

Yes but RAF doesn't include RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF or RSAF right? Some Colonials fought in the RAF but some fought in their own units too. In North Africa there were RAAF and RSAF squadrons and in the Pacific RNZAF. In the UK itself I believe there were RCAF Typhoon squadrons right?

I write "English" because it's common use where I live to describe people from the British Isles and their language, and it's also the correct term for the (far older) historical periods I'm most familiar with on a semi-professional basis. Of course your Islands have gone by many names and have had many different rulers over the centuries.

USA history books use the term "English" long after it ceased to be correct. All the RAF bomber fields around my home were stationed by RCAF squadrons, however they were all part of the RAF, some further south had French squadrons but likewise they were flying for the RAF.

 

[Glider]

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.

Maybe you didn't see this part of my posting
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.

a) If the FW190 doesn't want to get caught and is 30mph faster than you, then you are not going to catch it.
b) In Europe the role was primarily GA which means that all the other points are valid. Why was it mainly GA? simple, the RAF had plenty of Spit IX's as cover

PS you never did try to explain why the P40 was removed from Europe so quickly

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

#trolling

 

[fubar57]

LOL.....resp:

 

[Milosh]

Yes but RAF doesn't include RAAF, RCAF, RNZAF or RSAF right? Some Colonials fought in the RAF but some fought in their own units too. In North Africa there were RAAF and RSAF squadrons and in the Pacific RNZAF. In the UK itself I believe there were RCAF Typhoon squadrons right?

One would think with all your research you would know that the squadrons in the RAF composed of other nationalities were under the control of the RAF.

 

[Schweik]

Thanks for getting into the weeds on this, its the only way to move the conversation forward.

Shooting down FW 190s that are trying to intercept the bombers you are escorting (even if the bombers are other P-40s) is different than shooting down tip and run raiders, They have no interest in combat. They want to get in, drop the bomb and get out. Now if we look hard enough we can find that probably a number of aircraft happened to shoot down one or more tip and run raiders simply by being in the right place at the right time, doesn't mean they were good at it.

So here's the thing - most of their encounters with FW 190s were exactly that, Jabos on fast hit and run raids - Fw 190Gs mostly as you'll note in the post upthread.

I don't know the exact German TO & E but there seems to have been at least two types of FW units. JG 2 was around for a while flying at least some fighter missions, other SKG units were flying only fast Jabo strikes, on ships, tanks, airfields etc.

In Aug 1943 Shores shows a total of 72 Fw 190s in 3 such SKG units with 49 operational.

He also shows 158 Bf 109s operational out of 246.

Anyway point being they seem to have been dealing with 190 Jabo hit and run raids. I don't know how effective in terms of protecting targets but they inflicted casualties and the text mentions FW 190s dropping their ordinance early and sometimes on their own troops. On the other hand they did also hit and sink ships, bomb Allied troops and supplies and etc. they certainly weren't 100% stopped by any means.

If the Typhoon is better than the Spitfire of the same time and if the Spitfire is as fast as the P-40 why are we to believe the P-40 can do what the Spitfire cannot do on a consistent basis as far as chasing down tip and run raiders.

Beats me though this is 1943 so Spit IX and VIII are also shooting them down.

Chasing and catching FW 190 does require speed but diving will get any of these planes going 500+ mph which puts you at Sea Level pdq but also means if you are above a fighter that just dived you can dive on it.

If you are the one pursued being able to out turn your antagonist gives you another option. Maybe due to weight the P 40 retained dive speed better than a Spit V I don't know.

We also seen to be spreading the time line out. The Early Typhoons employed against the tip and run raiders had pretty much standard protection.(self sealing tanks BP windscreen some armor behind the seat and perhaps another piece or two) By the time of Normandy they Typhoons doing the bombing and rocketing had hundreds of extra pounds of armor. But hey, the P-40 is more maneuverable and doesn't need armor against ground fire because it is a harder target? While flying slower?
Since the Typhoon was never used in Italy we don't know it's survival rate against AA in that theater.

Maybe AAA us more concentrated in NW Europe but I'd like to see data showing that. I think you are overstating the vulnerability of the P 40 which was hardly known as fragile, also aside from the issue of agility the Tiffy is also a bit bigger isn't it? And with a touchier engine.

And before we start up with the the Germans used the same AA guns in both theaters, it isn't so much the guns but the quantity/scale of issue. Or perhaps it is better to say the number of AA guns per sq mi of territory flown over.

Again you might have something there but I'd like to see data as Italy and Yugoslavia don't sound like "mild flak" environments based on pilot accounts.

We also need to remember that while the channel was only 20 miles wide in one spot it was over 100 miles wide in a lot of other areas.
P-40s acting as fighter bombers may have had a much more restricted area of action than the Typhoons.

Please see this map of Allied and Axis bases in the Med in Summer 1943. Note for example the 325 FG base at that time in Mateur Tunisia is 120 - 150 miles away from targets in Sardinia where they routinely operated. It also shows the bases for 324, 33 and 57 FGs.

There were differences in the two theaters and it wasn't just escorting B-17/B-24s.

 

[Schweik]

One would think with all your research you would know that the squadrons in the RAF composed of other nationalities were under the control of the RAF.

All I can tell you is that the primary sources (particularly ANZAC ones) routinely make distinctions and therefore I follow suit. I have tried to be as careful as I can, I am not all that great at Political Correctness in any form and without meaning to offend I honestly don't care much about this particular issue of England vs Britain or rivalries, sensitive feelings or any other matters within the Commonwealth - like I said when referring to aircraft I'll just say UK and RAF / Commonwealth except where I mean something more specific.

 

[pbehn]

If the Typhoon is better than the Spitfire of the same time and if the Spitfire is as fast as the P-40 why are we to believe the P-40 can do what the Spitfire cannot do on a consistent basis as far as chasing down tip and run raiders.
.

The situation was changing rapidly in 1942. The Typhoon was seen as the future fighter for the RAF but by the time it was sorted the Spitfire had the Griffon engine and was coming into service. The Spitfire MKIX was also in service which had high altitude performance the Typhoon lacked, there was little doubt that the Griffon would be able to do the same with a two stage supercharger. From what is posted on this thread it seems the fighter squadrons formed with Typhoons remained as fighter squadrons, the later squadrons were as fighter bombers. 8 rockets fired from a Typhoon are no more or less devastating than fired from a Hurricane, but your chances of getting back and doing it again were much higher with a Typhoon. As I understand it a fighter bomber and its pilot must be divorced from the air war, if they aren't, they wont use their cannon on ground targets but save the ammunition for any air to air combat, which means they are not doing their job. Once a typhoon had hit a target its only job was to get itself home, essentially the Typhoons themselves were tip and run raiders, just a bit faster.

 

[Schweik]

Maybe you didn't see this part of my posting
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.

a) If the FW190 doesn't want to get caught and is 30mph faster than you, then you are not going to catch it.
b) In Europe the role was primarily GA which means that all the other points are valid. Why was it mainly GA? simple, the RAF had plenty of Spit IX's as cover

PS you never did try to explain why the P40 was removed from Europe so quickly

To be clear, I was referring to Italy and the South of France and Yugoslavia, which having been to all three places I can assure you they are not generally deserts.

A) Unless you are above it in a fast-diving plane which case dive and your speed will easily outpace the level speed of the intruder. This is why it was so dangerous to fly at very low altitude even in a fast plane.
B) The role of which aircraft do you mean, Typhoons? The role of P-40s was also mainly GA.

PS The P-40 was removed from NW Europe because of the altitude limitations of the Allison engine that powered it. Merlin (XX / 28) engined P-40s were a bit better in that department though still limited. But probably Ok down low.

I can't say that for sure though if it's true there was vastly more flak over Calais than Salerno that would be a legitimate reason that would require faster planes.

 

[Glider]

To be clear, I was referring to Italy and the South of France and Yugoslavia, which having been to all three places I can assure you they are not generally deserts.

PLease make your mind up. Are you comparing the P40 against the Typhoon where the Typhoon operated ie Northern France or are you not.

PS The P-40 was removed from NW Europe because of the altitude limitations of the Allison engine that powered it. Merlin (XX / 28) engined P-40s were a bit better in that department though still limited. But probably Ok down low.

My understanding was that they lacked performance, firepower, protection and range. That is why they were replaced

 

[pbehn]

I can't say that for sure though if it's true there was vastly more flak over Calais than Salerno that would be a legitimate reason that would require faster planes.

There were reasons the allies built their own ports in Normandy rather than trying to capture one.

 

[fubar57]

Flak positions around Cherbourg, '44

 

[pbehn]

Flak positions around Cherbourg, '44

View attachment 524298​

But a skilled pilot could sneak in behind a big wave.