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

Kevin J · Mar 16, 2019

Greyman said:
From the paper:

RHUBARB
A small offensive operation, using cloud cover, carried out by 1 or 2 sections, the primary object of which is the destruction of enemy aircraft. Rhubarb operations may also be directed against suitable predetermined ground targets, in accordance with current Rhubarb Instructions. Aircraft should approach ground targets at 0 ft. climbing only to make their attack. Cloud cover must be available in which to evade any enemy fighters encountered or to avoid intensive flak. Cloud 10/10 at 1,000 - 3,000 ft. with good visibility provide the most suitable conditions for Rhubarb operations. If weather proves to be unsuitable when approaching the enemy coast, the sortie should be abandoned. Pilots undertaking Rhubarb sorties must be carefully briefed. Navigation at 0 ft. must be accurate.

RANGER
Similar to operation RHUBARB but with deep penetration.

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.

Navalwarrior · Mar 16, 2019

Greyman said:
For what it's worth, Air Fighting Committee paper No.141 Offensive Operations By Home Based Fighters (Dec '42) does not list 'Ranger' as one of the operation types, while the 14 May '43 revision does.

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 · Mar 16, 2019

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 · Mar 16, 2019

fubar57 said:
It is written in an official paper in May. Baldwin says it became "later became known" well into August. How is May following August?

Resp:
I don't know. Maybe he, Baldwin didn't get the memo!

fubar57 · Mar 16, 2019

You're probably right. Flight Commanders are rarely in the loop

Shortround6 · Mar 16, 2019

Kevin J said:
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.

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 · Mar 16, 2019

Shortround6 said:
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?

According to the Russians the Tomahawk was as good as the Bf109F, and the Kittyhawk slightly better.

Clayton Magnet · Mar 16, 2019

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 · Mar 16, 2019

Clayton Magnet said:
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

Easy meat for their fighters according to them.

michael rauls · Mar 16, 2019

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 · Mar 16, 2019

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)

Navalwarrior · Mar 17, 2019

Kevin J said:
According to the Russians the Tomahawk was as good as the Bf109F, and the Kittyhawk slightly better.

Resp:
I've read that the P-40 could take a lot of punishment, but what about the various 109s?

XBe02Drvr · Mar 17, 2019

Navalwarrior said:
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 · Mar 18, 2019

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.

Navalwarrior · Mar 18, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
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

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.

XBe02Drvr · Mar 18, 2019

Navalwarrior said:
In spite of their light armament Welch and Taylor managed to survive to shoot down several enemy planes.

We all know how damage tolerant and fireproof IJN aircraft were. Not quite the same as an ME or an FW.
Cheers,
Wes

Navalwarrior · Mar 18, 2019

XBe02Drvr said:
We all know how damage tolerant and fireproof IJN aircraft were. Not quite the same as an ME or an FW.
Cheers,
Wes

Yes, but calibers above standard rifle rounds also were effective at greater range, an added benefit.

Shortround6 · Mar 18, 2019

The range thing is usually exaggerated. It exists in theory but the problems of hitting limited the practical range to nearly identical.

Clayton Magnet · Mar 18, 2019

Navalwarrior said:
Yes, but calibers above standard rifle rounds also were effective at greater range, an added benefit.

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 · Mar 18, 2019

Clayton Magnet said:
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

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.

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

P-40 or Typhoon

P-40

Typhoon

Banned

Staff Sergeant

General

Staff Sergeant

General

Lieutenant General

Banned

Staff Sergeant

Banned

Tech Sergeant

Lieutenant General

Staff Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Captain

Staff Sergeant

2nd Lieutenant

Staff Sergeant

Lieutenant General

Staff Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads