Kevin J
Banned
You'd have thought that the Tomahawk would have been the perfect fighter in 1941 for doing this, that plus its longer range and speed higher than the Spitfire Vb.
Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (6 Viewers)
- Status
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
Thanks. I suspect that the formal technology 'followed' operational uses. Hence Baldwin's statement 'that later became known as' etc, etc. His memo on his war experiences was written sometime after the end of WWII, where he made a general statement that emphasized how they carried out their missions in the Typhoon. I don't believe Baldwin was 'tooting' his own horn when he wrote what he and his unit accomplished.
fubar57
General
It is written in an official paper in May. Baldwin says it became "later became known" well into August. How is May following August?
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
I don't know. Maybe he, Baldwin didn't get the memo!
fubar57
General
You're probably right. Flight Commanders are rarely in the loop
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
doesn't matter if the Tomahawk is enough faster than a Spit MK v to win a bar bet. What matters is, is either one fast enough to get away with this tactic/strategy against the 109F-4 in the summer of 1941?
Kevin J
Banned
According to the Russians the Tomahawk was as good as the Bf109F, and the Kittyhawk slightly better.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 914
- Feb 16, 2013
Will all due respect to the Russians, the only thing better than a Bf 109F-4 in the summer of 1941 was the Fw 190A-1
Kevin J
Banned
Easy meat for their fighters according to them.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
I think it would depend on the theater. If most of the combat is happening under 20,000 feet then the p40 is great. If most of the combat in said theater is over 20,000 feet maybe not so much.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
This may depend on how the planes were operated.
It is very difficult to get good. reliable information on how the P-40 performed in combat due to the combat units greater or lesser extent of using higher boost than the manuals called for. The Testing units in both the US or England tended to fly by the book and not use higher than normal boost settings. In fact the British tended to under rate American aircraft because they used the 30 minute or 1 hour rating for the entire climb rather than using the military power setting that Wright Field in the US used for the first 5 minutes.
For the early Allisons (and for many of the later ones?) this meant 2600rpm and 37 in of MAP instead of 3000rpm and 43-45in (depending on exact model) that the US used for the first 5 minutes.
Now when in 1941 you want to push the snot out of an Allison engine is also subject to question. Dec 1941 might be one thing. Jan 1941 is another story, it taking a very brave or foolish pilot to over boost an Allison at the beginning of 1941. Allisons had several major problems in the beginning and the early Curtiss Wright electric props had a few problems of their own.
About 228 of the first Allison engines had to be sent back to the factory and reworked (include a new crankcase). There were bearing troubles, the Electric prop didn't govern properly and allowed the engine to over speed, the drive/s to the generator/s often failed in spite of the first modification with rubber dampers. At one point the Russians claimed ALL of their Tomahawks were grounded due to broken generator drives. They were resorting to removing the Generator and flying on the battery. If the battery got low the prop could no longer be controlled in pitch and the rpm governor would not work.
Most or all of these troubles were sorted out in 1941 and early 1942 ( and the P-40D&E used a newer Allison with some of the problems already eliminated)
It is very difficult to get good. reliable information on how the P-40 performed in combat due to the combat units greater or lesser extent of using higher boost than the manuals called for. The Testing units in both the US or England tended to fly by the book and not use higher than normal boost settings. In fact the British tended to under rate American aircraft because they used the 30 minute or 1 hour rating for the entire climb rather than using the military power setting that Wright Field in the US used for the first 5 minutes.
For the early Allisons (and for many of the later ones?) this meant 2600rpm and 37 in of MAP instead of 3000rpm and 43-45in (depending on exact model) that the US used for the first 5 minutes.
Now when in 1941 you want to push the snot out of an Allison engine is also subject to question. Dec 1941 might be one thing. Jan 1941 is another story, it taking a very brave or foolish pilot to over boost an Allison at the beginning of 1941. Allisons had several major problems in the beginning and the early Curtiss Wright electric props had a few problems of their own.
About 228 of the first Allison engines had to be sent back to the factory and reworked (include a new crankcase). There were bearing troubles, the Electric prop didn't govern properly and allowed the engine to over speed, the drive/s to the generator/s often failed in spite of the first modification with rubber dampers. At one point the Russians claimed ALL of their Tomahawks were grounded due to broken generator drives. They were resorting to removing the Generator and flying on the battery. If the battery got low the prop could no longer be controlled in pitch and the rpm governor would not work.
Most or all of these troubles were sorted out in 1941 and early 1942 ( and the P-40D&E used a newer Allison with some of the problems already eliminated)
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
I've read that the P-40 could take a lot of punishment, but what about the various 109s?
I guess that might depend on whether that punishment was .303, .50, or 20MM. There are pictures out there of 109s parked on the flight line at home base perforated like swiss cheese with small caliber holes.
Cheers,
Wes
wuzak
Captain
How many Tomahawks were available in Britain in the summer of 1941?
I'd have thought that deliveries were only just getting going by then.
I'd have thought that deliveries were only just getting going by then.
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
From what I read, the P-40B/Cs flown in response to the attack at Pearl Harbor (including those by Welch and Taylor) only had ammo in their wing mounted 30 cal guns (two in each wing) while the two nose mounted 50s had not been loaded. In spite of their light armament Welch and Taylor managed to survive to shoot down several enemy planes.
While the US entered WWII with several front line fighters equipped with 30 cal MG, newer models deleted or replaced these guns with 50 cal MG. Their ineffectiveness in air-to-air combat was quickly recognized.
We all know how damage tolerant and fireproof IJN aircraft were. Not quite the same as an ME or an FW.
Cheers,
Wes
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Yes, but calibers above standard rifle rounds also were effective at greater range, an added benefit.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
The range thing is usually exaggerated. It exists in theory but the problems of hitting limited the practical range to nearly identical.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 914
- Feb 16, 2013
Effective range is great in theory, but wing mounted machine guns are set to converge at 400 or less yards. Good luck hitting anything beyond that distance, even if the projectile is more than capable
Navalwarrior
Staff Sergeant
- 764
- Jun 17, 2018
Resp:
I could have said that better. Energy was certainly greater. Agree with the 400 yrds as a practical limit. I have read that Douglas Bader preferred .303 wing mounted guns over cannons. Likely due to preferring shorter range contact. My guess only.
- Status
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
