Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (4 Viewers)

[Dan Fahey]

I'm a little disappointed that I seem to keep having to post the same stuff over and over.

Here are the (P-40 only) victory claim totals by Fighter Group:

33rd FG - 137 victories (active with P-40s Nov 42 - Feb 44)
57th FG - 144 victories (active with P-40s Aug 42 - Jan 44
325th FG - 133 victories (active with P-40s March 43 - Oct 43)
324th FG - 66 victories (active with P-40s March 43 - July 44)
79th FG - 118 victories (active with P-40s Dec 42 - March 44)

Those are Claims not confirmed!
Who actually are shot down are in Luftwaffe records.
After a day of Combat you always know who did not return.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Well, most of the P-40 variants generally had a lower wing loading than most of the Yak variants. Big wing with a large wing area.

Aside from wing loading, power also makes a difference - the P-40M may have had a better (quicker by time) turning circle in their test because they flew it at a higher power setting.

Hello Schweik,
If these tests really were flown at 1,000 feet as you commented earlier, then the P-40E/K would have the greater engine power available. It sounds like altitude was a bit higher where the P-40M had a slight advantage in power that was enough to offset its higher induced drag.

Most of the M-105 powered Yaks (except the Yak 3 with a more souped up 105PF) seem to have similar power to mass ratios as P-40s, so long as the latter were flying at moderately high power settings, i.e. 57" Hg or 60" Hg etc. which they were capable of at all the altitudes combat normally took place on the Russian Front (up to about 10,000 ft). The VK-107 powered Yaks were considerably zippier of course.

The only problem with this theory is that the P-40E/K were not capable of 57 or 60 inches Hg by 10,000 feet. In climbing flight (un-rammed) they were down to around 42 inches by 11,500 feet. I believe Shortround6 already commented on this

Here is another article about the P-40 in Soviet Service that has a lot more specifics.
It also paints a much less pretty picture of the Soviets' opinions of the P-40 series.
The P-40 in Soviet Aviation

- Ivan.

 

[Schweik]

Those are Claims not confirmed!
Who actually are shot down are in Luftwaffe records.
After a day of Combat you always know who did not return.

I'm well aware. This whole thread was started as the result of my posting exactly such (German and Italian) combat records, which show units like the 325th FG winning numerous engagements at the rates of 5-1, 3-1, 4-0 etc. I have posted a few of those in this thread already.

 

[Milosh]

Those are Claims not confirmed!
Who actually are shot down are in Luftwaffe records.
After a day of Combat you always know who did not return.

What is missing from that data posted is the losses that occurred.

 

[Schweik]

What is missing from that data posted is the losses that occurred.

I have the rather uncomfortable feeling that we are kind of going in circles as several points raised on this page have already been dealt with I think two or three times. But I do have some of this data and I'll post it again for the benefit of those who missed it before. If you skipped it last time please read this.

In general, I don't have the summaries for every fighter group but you can see the data for the 325th FG. They post victories here. Losses vs. victories here. That page also shows the operational history which can be contrasted with the 79th FG mission history that I posted upthread - it's notable that by contrast 325th FG flew mostly escort and fighter sweep missions and only roughly 1/4 fighter bomber attacks.

Breakdown for the P-40 is 133 'confirmed' air combat victories (almost all fighters), 16 air combat losses, plus another 24 'probable' air combat losses for 43 total. There is also a more detailed breakdown showing 12 losses to enemy aircraft and 12 to "unknown" most of which are probably enemy aircraft. So that is 133 vs. 24.

There are also some interesting comparisons by type:

Sortie to victory ratio for the P-40 was 30.2/1
Sortie to loss ratio for the P-40 was 93.3/1

Sortie to victory ratio for the P-47 was 26.47/1
Sortie to loss ratio for the P-47 was 98.1/1

Sortie to victory ratio for the P-51 was 40.4/1
Sortie to loss ratio for the P-51 was 107.2/1

Shores MAW Volume IV corroborates the above data, and of the 43 'probable' air combat losses it's clear that many of these are to Flak, some to accidents and some are to mechanical problems. I'll post a summary of 325th FG P-40 activity based on MAW IV when I have some time.

Of course all the claims aren't real, overclaiming is universal. So we can look at some examples where Axis records corroborate Allied claims and to what extent they can be verified.

More specifically, from Mediterranean Air War Volume IV, here are a few engagements for several days of action in the summer of 1943 (already posted and somewhat debated here). These are just the days for which it's verifiable that the victories were attributable to P-40 units. There are many other days where the Germans and Italians reported losses, P-40 units made numerous claims but so did units flying other fighters and it's not possible on many days to determine who got what victory.

On these days however it's clear:

June 8 1943- 79th FG P-40Fs made 6 claims, 52nd FG Spitfires claimed 1, 1st FG P-38s made 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.
June 10 1943 (US 325th and 79th FG and 31st FG [Spit] vs JG 27 and JG 53, and Italian 161, 22, and 53 Stormos) 15 x Bf 109s lost, 8 MC 202 lost / 3 P-40s lost*
July 8 1943 (US 324th FG vs. JG 77 and JG 53 and Italian 150 Gr CT) 5 x German Bf 109G-6 lost and 1 x Italian Bf 109G lost / 3 P-40s lost
July 22 1943 (US 325th FG vs. Italian 22 and 51 Stormo) 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 (US 325th FG vs. JG 53 and Italian 51 Stormo) 2 x Bf 109G shot down, 1 x MC 205 (+1 205 'shot up by fighters') / 0 P-40s lost
July 30 1943 (US 325th FG vs. JG 77) P-40s claimed 21 enemy fighters shot down for one loss. Actual losses were 6 x Bf 109G Shot down / 1 P-40 shot down

Overclaiming - my count for these days is 87 claims (71 by P-40s and 16 by other Allied fighters) vs. 51 actual losses**. So that will give you some idea of the overclaiming ratios. Total P-40 verified victories (assuming zero overclaiming by Spitfires or P-38s on these days) are at least 35 verified kills for 9 losses.

So far I found one day in Vol IV where the P-40s took substantial losses in air combat which significantly outpaced their victories:

July 10 1943 (day of the Invasion of Sicily) losses included 8 x Spitfires, 6x P-38s, 5 x P-40Ls, 4 x B-25s, 2 x B-26 and 5 x A-36 (P-51 dive bombers) which were all to "undertermined" reasons. German / Italian losses included 7 x Bf 109, & 4 x RE 2002. That is 19 Allied fighters lost vs. 11 Axis.

So overall, in the Summer of 1943 in particular, these US P-40 Fighter Groups seem to have done pretty well. It has been suggested that the Axis planes were outnumbered, but I can show that was not always or even usually the case. It has also been suggested that P-40 victories were due to Spitfire top cover. But this was also not usually the case. On two of the above six occasions the P-40 units had support from Spitfires or P-38s, but on the other four they were on their own. The 325th FG in particular was flying a lot of escort and Fighter Sweep missions over Sardinia during this period with no friendly company other than B-26s. The July 22, 26 and 30 combats were all over Sardinia with no other Allied fighters present.

S

* on this day June 10 both Spitfire and P-40 units made claims, but the losses show that the P-40 units shot down at least 9 enemy fighters. Claims break down as follows

Allied fighter pilots made 35 claims for fighters 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

That's 14

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

That's 21

Actual Axis losses were 23 fighters. So even if you assume for some reason that none of the Spitfire units overclaimed and all of the P40 units did, it still leaves 9 x Bf 109s definitely lost to P-40s.

** It ads up to an overclaiming rate of 58% (as in 58% of the claims were real). If we applied that same ratio to the 325th FG's totals - it would give us 77 victories for 24 losses, or a 3.25 -1 victory ratio. Of course that is just a guess but it gives you something to hang your hat on.

 

[Schweik]

Hello Schweik,
If these tests really were flown at 1,000 feet as you commented earlier, then the P-40E/K would have the greater engine power available. It sounds like altitude was a bit higher where the P-40M had a slight advantage in power that was enough to offset its higher induced drag.

The P-40E would in theory have the potential of higher engine power, but we don't know what engine settings they tested at - what I was suggesting is they probably used the military power setting from the manual, as in so many of the British and American tests we have seen. That is a mere 42" IIRC so quite low HP. The P-40M may have been tested at a higher power setting since it arrived much later and as we have discussed quite a bit in here, the manual was adjusted upwards for power settings repeatedly over the years.

Unfortunately they did not test the P-40K that I know of (or at least that has been published - I assume they probably did test it).

Sadly we don't know the actual details of course, that is just an educated guess.

The only problem with this theory is that the P-40E/K were not capable of 57 or 60 inches Hg by 10,000 feet. In climbing flight (un-rammed) they were down to around 42 inches by 11,500 feet. I believe Shortround6 already commented on this

The P-40E or K should be able to make 57" in level flight up to around at least 7,000 or 8,000 ft. which is plenty for the Russian Front on most days. Low speed climb is not something you would do in combat in a P-40, partly to maintain combat speed, but it would also keep RAM - you can dive a little and zoom climb. This is how pilots reported using it.

Here is another article about the P-40 in Soviet Service that has a lot more specifics.
It also paints a much less pretty picture of the Soviets' opinions of the P-40 series.
The P-40 in Soviet Aviation

- Ivan.

This too has been posted multiple times. I don't know how closely you read it, but I draw your attention to the last two paragraphs:

"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."

The Soviet authorities didn't love the P-40, though some of it's pilots clearly did. They generally preferred the P-39 for reasons I tried to outline carefully in another post - I would suggest the 4 month workup they did on it (which helped clear many of the maintenance issues) the nose guns - including the big 37mm which they actually liked, small wings / low drag which matched the way they liked to fight with the Yak and La 5 / 7 series fighters, and the fact that the Soviet pilots weren't as bothered by slightly 'twitchy' handling characteristics.

If you read that article carefully, the main problem they had with the P-40 was maintenance. Also keep in mind that article was written when the general consensus about P-40s was still that they were very much 2nd rate. The author notes with surprise that P-40s could take out Bf 109s without a problem.



S

 

[Stig1207]

There are some differences in USAAF losses depending on sources. The USAAF Statistical Digest gives for the period June, July and August 1943 391fighters lost on combat missions. MAW IV in the same period has about 260, including damaged aircraft that returned.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I have the rather uncomfortable feeling that we are kind of going in circles as several points raised on this page have already been dealt with I think two or three times. But I do have some of this data and I'll post it again for the benefit of those who missed it before. If you skipped it last time please read this.

.....

There are also some interesting comparisons by type:

Sortie to victory ratio for the P-40 was 30.2/1
Sortie to loss ratio for the P-40 was 93.3/1

Sortie to victory ratio for the P-47 was 26.47/1
Sortie to loss ratio for the P-47 was 98.1/1

Sortie to victory ratio for the P-51 was 40.4/1
Sortie to loss ratio for the P-51 was 107.2/1

It's worth noting here that while the P-51 has the best sortie to victory ratio, the P-40 has lowest loss rate of the three fighters they used. This proves nothing definitively but is common across nearly every Theater of operations where P-40s were active from Russia to the Solomons to Burma. It's also notable (though again proves nothing) that they had a better victory to sortie rate with the P-40 than the P-47.

Hello Schweik,
Thanks for reposting. I had not seen this the first time but I also didn't read all 30-something pages of posts that were here before I joined in.

Are you sure you are interpreting the statistics correctly?
26 Sorties per Victory is better than 40 Sorties per Victory
and
93 Sorties per Loss is not as good as 107 Sorties per Loss.

I believe Shortround6 mentioned this before, but a lot of this might have to do with different mission profiles.
How long in duration is each sortie and what is the likelihood of running into aerial opposition?

- Ivan.

 

[Schweik]

There are some differences in USAAF losses depending on sources. The USAAF Statistical Digest gives for the period June, July and August 1943 391fighters lost on combat missions. MAW IV in the same period has about 260, including damaged aircraft that returned.

Well in the above posts the loss data is from the 325th squadron history, not MAW IV. The only losses I'm quoting from there are the Axis losses.

As for the statistical digest, they may be including aborts, minor crash landings etc. I draw your attention to this note on the 325th FG page:

"b. "Operational" and "Other" losses include aircraft accidents at base or other friendly territory on a combat mission. Many of these aircraft were not heavily damaged and were flying again after the necessary repairs were made. This condition also exists as regards P-51 aircraft and all loss figures and rates are inflated in this respect. "

 

[Schweik]

Hello Schweik,
Thanks for reposting. I had not seen this the first time but I also didn't read all 30-something pages of posts that were here before I joined in.

Are you sure you are interpreting the statistics correctly?
26 Sorties per Victory is better than 40 Sorties per Victory
and
93 Sorties per Loss is not as good as 107 Sorties per Loss.

You are right- I removed that comment from my post. Just something I thought I noticed while transcribing it, my bad.

I believe Shortround6 mentioned this before, but a lot of this might have to do with different mission profiles.
How long in duration is each sortie and what is the likelihood of running into aerial opposition?

- Ivan.

Yes that is why I was careful to say it does not prove anything. (and I'm glad I did since I made an error!) The mission durations are probably the same but the amount of air opposition had definitely declined by the time the P-51 came on the scene.

 

[Stig1207]

Well in the above posts the loss data is from the 325th squadron history, not MAW IV. The only losses I'm quoting from there are the Axis losses.

You also posted data ffrom MAW IV in the above posts and I am pointing out that another source has some 50% more USAAF fighter losses than MAW IV. Whether that has any bearing on the USAAF flown P-40's combat record I don't know; but it is curious that there is such a differnce in losses between the sources.

Edited due to bad maths

 

[Schweik]

You also posted data ffrom MAW IV in the above posts and I am pointing out that another source has some 33% more USAAF fighter losses than MAW IV. Whether that has any bearing on the USAAF flown P-40's combat record I don't know; but it is curious that there is such a differnce in losses between the sources.

Yes you are right! Christopher Shores and his team of researchers probably missed 131 victories of the mongrel Allied pilots by the experten! And so did the Fighter Group historians who posted the stats here. Possibly due to a Bolshie conspiracy.

OR - the other possibility is something like "b. "Operational" and "Other" losses include aircraft accidents at base or other friendly territory on a combat mission. Many of these aircraft were not heavily damaged and were flying again after the necessary repairs were made. This condition also exists as regards P-51 aircraft and all loss figures and rates are inflated in this respect. "

Shores et al might be filtering such incidents out especially if they took place at or near the friendly base and not over enemy territory. I don't know.

I haven't had time to crunch the numbers in MAW IV - I'm rather amazed you apparently have to some extent. Any actual data is always welcome.

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Part of why the American units did better in terms of the ratio of victories vs losses though, is that they worked more as a team.

I have a hard time believing that brand new American crews in combat for the first time were somehow more effective with the same equipment than their DAF counterparts. Some of whom had been in combat almost continuously for 2 years at that point

 

[Schweik]

I have a hard time believing that brand new American crews in combat for the first time were somehow more effective with the same equipment than their DAF counterparts. Some of whom had been in combat almost continuously for 2 years at that point

A few comments:

• Sorry to be blunt but this is what the data says (at least so far). So it doesn't really matter what you believe.
• DAF squadrons were not using proper tactics until about the same time the Americans arrived. I have some RAF pilot commentary on this which I'll post later when I have time to transcribe it. But suffice to say (for now) things were really bad on that level.
• DAF P-40 squadrons were mostly using older Allison engined P-40s. DAF used over 1,000 'Tomahawk' and nearly 2,000 of P-40D and E. They got some, maybe 200 (much better) K and a few - about 300 F or L in mid 1942 (only two Sqns got Kittyhawk II / P-40 F/L - 260 RAF and 3 RAAF were equipped with Mk IIs, and only for a relatively short time).
• DAF combat victory / loss ratios also improved after Summer 1942
• The USAAF squadrons had a lot more training in general and a lot more training on type specifically. I have already posted the details of this but you can find it upthread somewhere if you are really interested. On average it was like 4 or 5 times as much training time.
• The USAAF squadrons also trained with DAF squadrons, in fact they embedded with them as they came into the Theater. The squadron leaders generally flew with the DAF for several weeks at least before the main squadrons came in, and then they too flew with DAF (as attached units) until they got up to speed.

So in short - the Americans were flying better tactics (flying in pairs with wingmen / higher altitude sorties / group attacks when bounced) had better aircraft (Merlin XX P-40s had an effective ceiling of ~20k ft vs 12k ft for a Kittyhawk Ia) and more training, part of which was derived directly from the DAF.

The Operational Strategy also improved as by late summer 1942 they were flying sorties against Luftwaffe airfields and forcing fights on their own terms, instead of being sitting ducks as previously.

It is worth noting however that (as recently discussed in the thread) the DAF / Commonwealth had far more Aces, and higher scoring Aces flying the P-40 than the US units did.

 

[Schweik]

Not that DAF P-40 units did terrible either, here are some stats from the Wiki:

Victory claims and losses for three Tomahawk/Kittyhawk squadrons of the Desert Air Force, June 1941–May 1943.

Unit 3 Sqn RAAF [112 Sqn RAF] 450 Sqn RAAF

Claims with Tomahawks 41 [36]
Claims with Kittyhawks 74.5 [82.5] 49
Total P-40 claims 115.5 [118.5] 49
P-40 losses (total) 34 [38] 28

 

[Dimlee]

Being able to withstand G loads was another of those rare skills (like marksmanship in general, or deflection shooting specifically, or a knack for riding a stall) that some pilots used to their advantage. Greg Boyington and the Australian Ace Nicky Barr both had developed personal techniques of 'bearing down' to withstand G load. Boyington was a wrestler and Barr was a rugby player, which apparently contributed to their having the right kind of (thick, muscular) necks for that business.

I think in later periods they started teaching this but I don't know when.

Some trivia.
Ivan Kozhedub was amateur weight lifter. At the age of 13 he could lift 2 poods (2x16.4kg) kettlebell with one hand. Later, as a flight cadet and a pilot he repeated this exercise many times - but keeping the kettlebell with his pinky.

 

[Schweik]

Some trivia.
Ivan Kozhedub was amateur weight lifter. At the age of 13 he could lift 2 poods (2x16.4kg) kettlebell with one hand. Later, as a flight cadet and a pilot he repeated this exercise many times - but keeping the kettlebell with his pinky.

Another badass. Wiki also says "He was also reputed to have a natural gift for deflection shooting"

 

[DarrenW]

Since just about every aircraft known to man gained weight somewhere along the design/development process the actual G loading went down. The Mustang was good for 8"G"s in service (12 Gs ultimate) at 8000lbs, since flying a Mustang at 8,000lbs meant you were seconds away from running out of fuel or oil you had to make allowances. 8 times 8,000 is 64,000. If the Mustang is grossing 9000lbs you divide 64,000 by 9,000 and get 7.111 There is actually a chart in the manual that explains this.

So was this the basic formula used for US warplanes as a whole, or do you believe it to be somewhat isolated to the Mustang?

 

[Schweik]

It's for all US warplanes, the Mustang just gained more weight than most, largely because it ended up carrying so much fuel.

Fully loaded with fuel Mustangs didn't fly that well either...

 

[Ivan1GFP]

It's for all US warplanes, the Mustang just gained more weight than most, largely because it ended up carrying so much fuel.

Fully loaded with fuel Mustangs didn't fly that well either...

Hello Schweik, DarrenW,
Keep in mind that the Mustang was originally equipped with an Allison engine and just the switch to a Merlin with the fuselage modifications added substantial weight.
Remember that the Fuselage Fuel Tank that caused all the CoG problems wasn't fitted until fairly late into the P-51B production run.

Most other aircraft gained weight to some extent. A very notable and significant example was the F4F Wildcat.
From the F4F-3 to F4F-4/FM-1, the Wildcat gained a bit over 500 pounds in Basic Weight and Gross Weight (over 5% of Gross Weight).

- Ivan.