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

Schweik · Dec 13, 2018

True but Jabo targets were to be found all over the region around Southern Italy, all the ships and boats in the sea, at the various Allied airfields all the way out to Sicily, Corsica etc.

I believe the Axis had airfields just as close to Anzio (or earlier, to the landing beaches in Sicily etc.) as they did to England.

The P-40Fs probably flew a wider variety of missions (maybe more bomber escorts) but both types flew fighter sweeps, armed recon, intruder, fighter bomber / CAS, defensive combat air patrol, and interception missions. Didn't the Typhoon fly escort missions to Netherlands etc.?

Typhoon also had the jet and V-1 intercept missions which the P-40 definitely didn't do.

But ultimately I don't think there was that much difference in their range missions especially over the 3-4 years of service of both aircraft, it seems like it would shake out.

Shortround6 · Dec 13, 2018

Typhoons never got shoot up japanese twin bombers or other rather vulnerable targets in the CBI or South Pacific.
Typhoons also never got shoot up Macchi 200s, SM 79s Italian transports or JU 52s or Me 323s.
Germans for much of 1942 and 1943 didn't have to come and "play" with fighter sweeps over NW Europe unless they thought they had an actual advantage.

I really don't think the British got value for money from the TYphoon, mainly because of the Sabre engine. It's destructiveness as rocket firing airplane is vastly overblown. the 132 tank kills sometimes claimed was more like 6. The British (and the Allies) could probably have conducted the war with the Typhoon never having been built and would not have affected the outcome in any significant way. (assuming they built 3000 of a different plane)
But simplistic comparisons like number of planes shot down vs number of planes built really don't tell us much.

The P-40 Did affect the conduct of the war by being available in numbers when and where needed in 1941-42-43. However it's continued combat survivability had as much to do with it's opponents stumbling and dropping the ball/s than any great properties of the P-40 it self.

Navalwarrior · Dec 13, 2018

wuzak said:
Typhoons were fighters that were later used as fighter-bombers.

Originally the Typhoon (and Tornado) were supposed to supersede the Hurricane and Spitfire.

In terms of performance, the Typhoon is superior to the P-40F in most respects.

It climbed better at lower to medium altitudes.
Was faster at all heights.
It had better firepower.
It had better load carrying capability.

On the downside, its ceiling was slightly lower and high altitude climb was less. The engine was unreliable at the start, but that was improved over time.
It had some structural problems, but a fix was found and implemented for them.

You mentioned the Fw 190 Jabos. The Typhoon could track them down - the P-40F, probably not.
The Typhoon could catch and destroy V-1s. P-40F probably not.
The Typhoon was also used to escort Mosquito FBs on occasion. I doubt the P-40F could have kept up.

Your first question is moot. Many more P-40s were built (though not P-40Fs), they served in more theatres over a longer period and had more opportunity for aerial combat.

Resp:
We are also pitting one version of the P-40 (Merlin engined) against all variants of the Typhoon? To me it is clear to that the Typhoon was the better in the role of ground attack; performing splendly post D-Day of 6 June. If the Typhoon was used in the MED, I am not aware of it. Typhoon pilots had to use oxygen from the time of take off to touchdown, as fumes polluted their cockpits.

Schweik · Dec 13, 2018

Shortround6 said:
Typhoons never got shoot up japanese twin bombers or other rather vulnerable targets in the CBI or South Pacific.
Typhoons also never got shoot up Macchi 200s, SM 79s Italian transports or JU 52s or Me 323s.

Sorry all this is at best misleading at worst and attempt to deflect.

As I already pointed out, very few P-40F or L were deployed to the Pacific. One squadron, to be precise, compared to 17 (fifteen US and two RAF) squadrons in the Med. Most of the claims by the latter were for Bf 109s, Machi 202s and Fw 190s. Examination of records shows that some of their Macchi 202 claims were actually Macchi 205s. They did also claim maybe 50 JU 52s etc. in a couple of famous incidents but you can easily knock those off of the totals and the P-40F is still way ahead of the Typhoon.

The P-40 Did affect the conduct of the war by being available in numbers when and where needed in 1941-42-43. However it's continued combat survivability had as much to do with it's opponents stumbling and dropping the ball/s than any great properties of the P-40 it self.

Their opponents for this subtype in particular (as in many other Theaters) were some of the most elite formations using the best fighters in any Air Force in the world at that time. So I think this is a very misleading statement.

S

Dan Fahey · Dec 13, 2018

Shortround6 said:
Typhoons never got shoot up japanese twin bombers or other rather vulnerable targets in the CBI or South Pacific.
Typhoons also never got shoot up Macchi 200s, SM 79s Italian transports or JU 52s or Me 323s.
Germans for much of 1942 and 1943 didn't have to come and "play" with fighter sweeps over NW Europe unless they thought they had an actual advantage.

I really don't think the British got value for money from the TYphoon, mainly because of the Sabre engine. It's destructiveness as rocket firing airplane is vastly overblown. the 132 tank kills sometimes claimed was more like 6. The British (and the Allies) could probably have conducted the war with the Typhoon never having been built and would not have affected the outcome in any significant way. (assuming they built 3000 of a different plane)
But simplistic comparisons like number of planes shot down vs number of planes built really don't tell us much.

The P-40 Did affect the conduct of the war by being available in numbers when and where needed in 1941-42-43. However it's continued combat survivability had as much to do with it's opponents stumbling and dropping the ball/s than any great properties of the P-40 it self.

Interesting topic....The P40 was used in every Theater of War extensively and a short while in England because the P40 had a much better range than any British Fighter at the time. Typhoon/Tempest were coulda, shouda, woulda planes that took a while to sort out. Its biggest benefit was carrying a heavy ordinance load and able to fight its way back. The last version with a Sleeve Valve Radial proved to be the best solution.

The P40 was well sorted out with the P36 and that means a lot considering WW2 lasted about 10 years and development of reliable aircraft were at a premium. There were a lot of missed opportunities that prevented some planes from being more successful. Most could-would be sorted out over time. However the pressures of war just did not have a lot of time. Especially when new technology, how to manage and integrate in a short amount of time confused some of the sorting out.

IMO the P40 was the best most versatile fighter we had. Used for just about every military situation from air superiority, escort, ground attack, Recon and reasonable fighter to get skills up to speed. A key reason the P40 was effective it had decent range which it allowed it to get to the fight and stay there. This is what hurt the P39, Hurricane and Spitfire with smaller internal fuel tanks. Logistics also had a huge benefit such as standardizing on the 50 cal, fuels, and radios, parts.

One of the interesting statistics and need to get find the documentation.
All the combatants seem to lose more planes due to training and non-combat accidents than lost in Combat.

Kevin J · Dec 13, 2018

Schweik said:
No offense but just about everything you said about the P-40 is wrong, they were quite successful as fighters in Theaters outside of NW Europe as measured for example by enemy aircraft shot down, or battles won. They just weren't good at high altitude. The last significant combat mission flown by Merlin engined P-40Ls that I know of was in September 1944.

One of the things that I'd really like to know is if the Typhoon really was a better air superiority fighter than a P-40F or L, I'd like to see evidence other than raw performance figures, like how many enemy aircraft were destroyed by Typhoon pilots. as for example high top speed with poor roll and turn characteristics isn't necessarily a recipe for success. The P-40 was not, incidentally, a contemporary of the Hurricane in terms of design, the Hurricane is an older design and peaked a bit earlier too, though all three aircraft, Hurricane, Typhoon and P-40 served during overlapping periods.

Whirlwind seems to have been a really neat plane. Typhoon sounds more and more like a pilots nightmare the more I read about it.

Quite a few of them were in the Med, though the loss rate did not decline and they scored significantly fewer combat victories after they converted to P-47s. In the CBI the P-40 had a very good record, with 973 victories, P-40 pilots claimed more enemy aircraft in the CBI than any other American type (345 for all types of Mustangs, 157 for P-38s and 16 for P-47s) and I'd be very surprised and interested to learn that any RAF or Commonwealth type did better. I'd love to see any Commonwealth numbers from the Theater.

A few Tempests and Sea Furies still around though I think. Thanks for the post even though we disagree on a few things.

S

Perhaps a better comparison would be between RAF Kittyhawks (3000) and RAF Typhoons (3300), 420 as opposed to 240 victories. The RAAF scored an additional 149 and the RNZAF 99. RAF Tomahawks scored another 77 victories in 2 of the 3 squadrons operating them in the Middle East. I would be surprised if a late 1942 Kittyhawk operating on over boost for 15/20 minutes at 1750/1780 hp was much slower than a Typhoon at low altitude. At the end of the war in the Pacific, RAAF Kittyhawks were scoring more victories than RAAF Spitfire VIII's. Pacific Victory Roll - Sep 43 - Jul 45

Schweik · Dec 13, 2018

Kevin J said:
Perhaps a better comparison would be between RAF Kittyhawks (3000) and RAF Typhoons (3300), 420 as opposed to 240 victories. The RAAF scored an additional 149 and the RNZAF 99. RAF Tomahawks scored another 77 victories in 2 of the 3 squadrons operating them in the Middle East. I would be surprised if a late 1942 Kittyhawk operating on over boost for 15/20 minutes at 1750/1780 hp was much slower than a Typhoon at low altitude. At the end of the war in the Pacific, RAAF Kittyhawks were scoring more victories than RAAF Spitfire VIII's. Pacific Victory Roll - Sep 43 - Jul 45

Thanks very interesting. Do you have sources for the RAF Kittyhawk and Tomahawk victories in the Middle East / Med? I have seen the Kittyhawk numbers but no Tomahawk numbers and wasn't sure if the 420 number was for all P-40 variants (seemed a bit low considering the USAAF units claimed 592 and were not in action as long and with fewer planes). Incidentally I believe there were more than three RAF squadrons using the Tomahawk if you include SAAF etc.

Interesting about the Australian context but not surprising, the ANZAC pilots generally seemed to like the P-40.

Kevin J · Dec 13, 2018

Schweik said:
Thanks very interesting. Do you have sources for the RAF Kittyhawk and Tomahawk victories in the Middle East / Med? I have seen the Kittyhawk numbers but no Tomahawk numbers and wasn't sure if the 420 number was for all P-40 variants (seemed a bit low considering the USAAF units claimed 592 and were not in action as long and with fewer planes). Incidentally I believe there were more than three RAF squadrons using the Tomahawk if you include SAAF etc.

Interesting about the Australian context but not surprising, the ANZAC pilots generally seemed to like the P-40.

Wikipedia for the Tomahawk victories in the Middle East, IIRC only about 300 were delivered there. For Kittyhawk victories Curtiss Kittyhawk.

Shortround6 · Dec 13, 2018

Schweik said:
Sorry all this is at best misleading at worst and attempt to deflect.

As I already pointed out, very few P-40F or L were deployed to the Pacific. One squadron, to be precise, compared to 17 (fifteen US and two RAF) squadrons in the Med. Most of the claims by the latter were for Bf 109s, Machi 202s and Fw 190s. Examination of records shows that some of their Macchi 202 claims were actually Macchi 205s. They did also claim maybe 50 JU 52s etc. in a couple of famous incidents but you can easily knock those off of the totals and the P-40F is still way ahead of the Typhoon.

How many Macchi 202s or 205 (262 built P-40s shot down how many?) were operating over NW Europe?
Which theater got the newest 109s and 190s first?

Sorry, this is still a flawed comparison.

Schweik · Dec 13, 2018

Shortround6 said:
How many Macchi 202s or 205 (262 built P-40s shot down how many?) were operating over NW Europe?
Which theater got the newest 109s and 190s first?

Sorry, this is still a flawed comparison.

Well, at this point I guess it has to be right ? The numbers don't look good for the Tiffy.

As far as I know the Med got the newest Bf 109s as soon as they were available. Fw 190s took a bit longer, they weren't there until Nov 1942. But the most intense fighting was from about Oct 42 (El Alamein) through Jan 44 (Anzio).

From everything I have read MC 202 was considered equivalent to Bf 109F and MC 205 to 109G. You are saying they are heavily inferior?

I think most of the US claims were against BF 109s anyway though certainly a substantial number of them were Macchis. Maybe 1/3 if I had to guess. The Italians didn't operate on as many days of the month apparently due to supply issues.

Please note the Italians were also of course out of the fight by 3 Sept. 1943.

pbehn · Dec 13, 2018

By mid 1944 neither were a front line fighter, post D Day the Typhoon played its part in ground attack, especially at Falaise. The role of Tank killer is overstated but 4 x 20mm cannon was devastating against almost everything except tanks.

Milosh · Dec 13, 2018

Tiffie claims

Bf109: 54 destroyed, 8 probable
Fw190: 94, 16
Do217: 23, 2
Ju88: 20, 1

Total: 246.5, 27

Schweik · Dec 13, 2018

94 Fw 190 claims is a lot, I'd say that carries a bit of extra weight.

I don't have the total victory claims breakdown for all P-40Fs, but for one of the 5 US fighter groups it is available here

As you can see, for the P-40 it shows 133 aircraft which further breaks down to:

Bf 109 - 95
M.C. 202* -26
Me 323 - 7
Fi. 156 -3
Ju 52 -2

By the time this particular unit encountered Fw 190s they had already converted to P-47s.

These are all basically from January to July 1943, during which period they lost 17 fighters in combat. As you can see they mostly claimed fighters shot down. Only 5 transport planes out of 133 and no bombers. This fighter group was attached to a bomb wing and their main mission was to provide escort to three B-26 squadrons.

*(some of these were actually M.C. 205s and some were Re 2002s)

DarrenW · Dec 13, 2018

Schweik said:
I didn't think of it until after I stared the thread, then I looked and couldn't see how to do it. Do you know how?

I was hoping there was an edit button or something after the fact, but maybe not. If a moderator stops in he can most likely make it a reality for us....at least I think so.

Schweik · Dec 13, 2018

DarrenW said:
I was hoping there was an edit button or something after the fact, but maybe not. If a moderator stops in he can most likely make it a reality for us....at least I think so.

That would be cool - I'm 100% ok with making this thread a poll I just couldn't figure out how to after the fact.

Shortround6 · Dec 13, 2018

Kevin J said:
I would be surprised if a late 1942 Kittyhawk operating on over boost for 15/20 minutes at 1750/1780 hp was much slower than a Typhoon at low altitude. At the end of the war in the Pacific, RAAF Kittyhawks were scoring more victories than RAAF Spitfire VIII's. Pacific Victory Roll - Sep 43 - Jul 45

Ah yes, the famous 1750hp P-40s.
chart for a P-40N using 57 in of boost shows a sea level speed of 315mph, increasing to about 335 at 5000 ft and maxing out at 352mph at 9200ft a t which point the boost starts to drop. this is for the later 9.60 geared engine. The earlier 8.80 geared engines (the only ones that could pull that 70in-72in number and survive.) show a somewhat different progression

Yes they could make 1750HP (depending on air temp and pressure at sea level on a given day) while in high speed forward flight.
But a chart for the very similar -35 engine in the P-39 shows the engine making 1600hp at 2500ft and about 1480 hp at 5000ft without RAM. at 9000ft it was making 1260hp.
The 1750hp or anything close is only available at sea level in level flight (not climbing) and at full speed.

If you have just taken off and folded the landing gear you do NOT have 1750hp unless you overspeed the engine.
If you are doing even a 1.4 G turn you do NOT have 1750hp unless you overspeed the engine.
If you are doing any but most gentile of climbs you do NOT have 1750hp unless you overspeed the engine.

To get 70in MAP from 30in ambient air the supercharger has to compress the air 2.33 times.
At 3,000ft the air (standard 59 degree F day) is 26.81in so multiplying by 2.33 gives you 62.55in of manifold pressure.
at 4,300ft and air pressure of 24.22in multiplying the air pressure by 2.33 gives us 56.51 of manifold pressure and indeed the -39 engine in the P-40E was rated for 56in at 4300ft when approved for WEP. and gave 1490hp. above the altitude the supercharger simply cannot deliver much more air unless you really overspeed the engine, a few hundred RPM won't even do the trick.

There is 3-5000ft low altitude and there is Prop kicking up sea water/ have to climb to clear a sand dune low altitude.

The actual utility (number of times) P-40 pilots could actually use manifold pressures in excess of the WEP ratings seems a bit lower than some people think.

Schweik · Dec 13, 2018

Shortround6 said:
Ah yes, the famous 1750hp P-40s.

There is 3-5000ft low altitude and there is Prop kicking up sea water/ have to climb to clear a sand dune low altitude.

The actual utility (number of times) P-40 pilots could actually use manifold pressures in excess of the WEP ratings seems a bit lower than some people think.

Well considering that the original WEP setting on that engine was supposed to be 45" Hg and the test you refer to was at 56", the Allison memo mentions their agreeing to 60", mentions units in the field routinely using 66" and 72", and the Mustang I report mentions 70" as a routine practice for sustained periods of time by RAF pilots (and also specifically recommends increasing the official boost limit to 56"), I would suggest that you are somewhat overstating your case. Obviously they routinely overboosted, and clearly overboosting in the field prompted the Air Force, the aircraft company and the engine company to adjust their standards higher. The only real question is how much and when did they start.

Could a P-40 outrun a Typhoon at Sea Level through overboosting? I have no idea I wouldn't bet on it. But 72" Hg is quite a bit more power than 56", producing about 200 more hp from what I understand, and no doubt it was useful even if it dipped slightly to a 'mere' extra 100 or 150 hp during a turn or a climb. According to the same couple of P-40N tests you are referring to they were still getting substantial boost right up to 10,000 feet so it's hardly something you can only do while mowing grass. That 1750 / 1780 number represents the top limit clearly, but the larger point - that they were not limited to the 45" Hg / 1150 hp that the manual states seems to somehow get lost in these discussions. Most overboosting was probably up to around the 1400-1600 hp level at anywhere between Sea Level and 9,000 or 10,000 ft depending on the exact variant and engine in question.

As for utility, I'll spell it out -

1) Trying to disengage (often after a Split S and a dive) from enemy fighters while being chased back to base, as described in repeated examples by US and RAF pilots
2) Extending after a dive so as to counter attack also described by the same pilots
3) Chasing enemy fighters in a long flight as they flee back to their base.

wuzak · Dec 13, 2018

Schweik said:
2000 P-40 F and L produced, with 592 US claims plus about another 50 by two RAF (260 RAF and 3 RAAF) squadrons operating them as Kittyhawk IIs. I don't know how many were claimed by the 1 squadron flying them in the Pacific but probably no more than a couple of dozen more. But lets say roughly 650 claims mostly between August 1942 and August 1943, with a trickle of a few more right up to September 1944. Operationally US P-40F units played a major role in defeating the Axis air forces in Tunisia, in capturing Pantelleria (it was actually an unsanctioned drop of "surrender to the 325th FG" note dropped on the island that seemed to induce the final surrender) the invasion of Sicily and Italy, and the survival of the Anzio beach-head. Not even talking about important victories by other P-40 types like at Milne Bay the Kokoda trail.

3000 Tiffys produced, 250 claims between 1941 and 1945, of which 30 were V-1s (or were those over?) and 3 for Me 262s. Lots of Fw 190s in the number which they helped deter from dominating the English Channel and terrorizing Southern England with Jabo raids.

2000 P-40F and L were produced in a relatively short time, using the US allocation of the initial licence production of the Merlin (the original order was for 6000 for the UK and 3000 for the US). production was probably done in a year (between 1941 and 1942).

3000+ Typhoons were built between 1941 and 1945. The majority probably after the switch to full time ground effect aircraft.

Even then, many Typhoons never made it to front line units.

I'm sure that 30 V-1s aren't counted in the 250 victory claims.

Me 262s were likely from a chance encounter, rather than deliberately hunting them.

Shortround6 · Dec 13, 2018

Schweik said:
From everything I have read MC 202 was considered equivalent to Bf 109F and MC 205 to 109G. You are saying they are heavily inferior?
.

The MC 202 used licence built version of the engine the Germans were getting rid of about the time of the BoB. Most MC 202s carried a pair or 12.7mm Breda-Safat machine guns that fired (if they were lucky) 700rpm each, this was a much less powerful round than the US .50 cal and was pretty much a licensed or parallel version of the British .5in round.

Only a small percentage carried a single 7.7mm machine gun in each wing.

The plane may have been streamlined and handled very well but it was trying to use an engine and armement equivalent (or less than) to a P-40B in 1942/43.

now which 109F are comparing it to. The F-2 or the F-4 with the engine restrictions lifted? which engine cannon, the 15mm or the 20mm?
The MC 205 was good airplane but again, with only 262 built and 177 of those were before the Italian surrender, It simply didn't exist in enough numbers to really affect things one way or the other.

Schweik · Dec 13, 2018

wuzak said:
2000 P-40F and L were produced in a relatively short time, using the US allocation of the initial licence production of the Merlin (the original order was for 6000 for the UK and 3000 for the US). production was probably done in a year (between 1941 and 1942).

3000+ Typhoons were built between 1941 and 1945. The majority probably after the switch to full time ground effect aircraft.

Even then, many Typhoons never made it to front line units.

I'm sure that 30 V-1s aren't counted in the 250 victory claims.

Me 262s were likely from a chance encounter, rather than deliberately hunting them.

All fair points. I figured given the problems they were having a lot of them would have been grounded for a while.

However it's worth pointing out that the majority of those claims for the P-40F/L were made in a period of about 8 months, basically winter 1942 to Summer 1943.

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

P-40 or Typhoon

P-40

Typhoon

Banned

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Major General

Banned

Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Banned

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Major General

Banned

Captain

Major General

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads