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

[ThomasP]

Thanks for the reply XBe02Drvr,

I tried plotting out the maneuver as you described it, but I could only get to work if there were 2x Wildcat vs 1x Zero. If there were 2x Zero then #1 Wildcat would have to continue onward in order for the #2 Wildcat to gain a position on the #1 Wildcat's trailer. He might get a shot at the #1 Wildcat's trailer but the #2 Wildcat's trailer would get a shot on the #2 Wildcat. The only way that the #1 Wildcat could then get a shot on the #2 Wildcat's trailer would be if the #1 Wildcat more or less stopped and rotated in place. I realize that there is some 3d maneuvering possible, but one thing the Wildcat was not is an energy fighter, at least not in comparison to the Zero or Ki-47. I also realize that I am in effect operating as a God's Eye In The Sky, but everything else being equal including the number of opponents, I can not get it to work. I could get it to work with a front deflection shot kind of the way I described it in my post#1037, instead of a head-on shot, but only if the trailers' rate of overtake was too high. If you feel like it, would you try plotting it out and see if you can get it to work out differently from what I think??

 

[Shortround6]

In an interview a long time after the war, Gunther Rall commented on the quality of difference nations aircraft. When asked what he thought the best fighter weapon of the war was, his reply (I am paraphrasing here because I do not have a transcript of the interview to hand) went something like this. "If you were to pick only one type of weapon to carry the Americans probably had the best balance in the .50 cal Browning. But people who disparage the British with their .303 cal MGs are incorrect. When there are 8 or 12 of them firing, you would end up with a hole in every part of the airplane...including you."

I may well be reading a lot more into that than Gunther Rall actually said, but an advantage the .50 had over many other aircraft guns was the short time of flight which meant it needed less lead than most other aircraft guns, The Americans also tended to use the .50 almost by itself, P-39s, P-38s and early P-40s aside for army fighters while many other nations (like the Germans) used mixed batteries with each gun type having a different trajectory (not that important) and a different time of flight to any distance other than short. Meaning they needed different aiming points. No German fighter could carry a large battery of machine guns (although they never tried with the Fw 190, you still have smallish wing to try to stuff more than 4-6 small machine guns in. for the US ( and late model Spitfires) the .50 and 20mm Hispano actually matched very well at any practical air to air distance so the P-38 didn't suffer from the mixed battery.

 

[michael rauls]

Well, I have a lifetime score of only two conversations with combat experienced F4F pilots, but being a "fighter nerd" in my younger days, I focussed on their comments on the Tach weave. One of them had learned it "straight from the horse's mouth". Apparently in practice, they would fly not quite as loose as you described, and angle in so as to cross at about a 45° angle, giving the shooter a nice lead for a deflection shot at the victim's pursuer, followed by an immediate reversal allowing the former victim a deflection shot at any pursuers his partner may have acquired. Given the nimbleness of Japanese aircraft, this only worked if it was kept close and tight with a high weave rate, thus guaranteeing that any shooting opportunities the enemy got were in a high G turn against a maneuvering target. (Read Sakai's account of "the incredible acrobatic Grumman").
The guy who was in Thach's squadron said that the Old Man was an absolute stickler for gunnery, and would transfer a pilot out of the squadron if he couldn't make a deadly deflection shooter out of him. I believe Thach was quoted as saying "A pilot who can't hit with four guns won't shoot down any planes with eight!
Cheers,
Wes

Thanks for that explanation of the Thatch weave. I've never really read a consise explanation of it before so was always a little fuzzy on how it worked.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

If you feel like it, would you try plotting it out and see if you can get it to work out differently from what I think??

Thanks for that explanation of the Thatch weave. I've never really read a consise explanation of it before so was always a little fuzzy on how it worked.

I long ago gave up trying to do scale plots of ACM engagements. It's a highly dynamic event and there are too many variables happening too fast to accurately depict on paper and then duplicate in the air. And if you've ever compared an airplane's estimated maneuvering performance from published statistics to what you can actually do with it in the air, you'll know what I mean.
Experience is the best teacher, and in that department, far be it from the likes of me to question Cdr. Thach or his disciples.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Ivan1GFP]

There are a number of negative comments 're the Zero only having 60 rounds. It's worth remembering that the RAF, Luftwaffe, USAAF also started with 60rpg for their 20mm.

Hello Glider,
That DOES seem a bit strange doesn't it? That thought had occurred to me as well, but I was figuring that it might have something to do with a particularly flimsy aircraft carrying the armament and unusually tough targets.
Did the P-38 Lightning actually start with only 60 rounds for its cannon? The ammunition load for wartime models was 150 rounds and it was the only USAAF fighter to carry a 20 mm. I figure the P-39 Airacobra really doesn't count because its 20 mm was a British specification and US spec aircraft would have had a 37 mm.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

The Thatch Weave came about because once an enemy (who is as skilled as you are or possibly better, often outnumbers you, and in an airplane that outclasses your plane in all areas of maneuver but dive speed and roll at high speed) is in a shooting position or almost in a shooting position, there is almost nothing else that will accomplish anything. The only options you have are to start as tight a turn as you can, roll and start a turn, turn and climb, half-loop, full loop, or half-roll and dive.....

Hello ThomasP,
I believe in your account, you are writing with the benefit of hindsight and greater knowledge of the opposition than Cdr. Thach had at the time he devised the tactic.
As I understand it, the context was the following: The US was getting reports of the superior performance of Japanese fighters and was discounting the reports as not being believable. "Jimmy" Thach (and others) thought about what they could do IF the reports turned out to be true and the opposition was as superior in performance as reports were claiming. The proof of concept was done with Wildcats as both attacker and defender but the defenders were only allowed to use part throttle in order to reduce their relative performance.

As to the effectiveness of the 20mm vs the .50 cal Browning vs the .303/7.7mm cal MGs I refer you back my post#1029 with the addition:

All(?) the major combatants in WWII initially equipped their 20mm armed aircraft with ~60-round drums. As far as I have read, although all combatants attempted to increase the ammo load, none of the combatants thought the short firing time was worthless or pitiful.

This opinion that you state was not universally shared. There are some accounts that disparage the cannon because of the short duration of fire and how they were just dead weight for most of the fight. Pitiful is my choice of words, not theirs.
Are you sure that Soviet and US aircraft with 20 mm guns only carried 60 rounds per gun?

- Ivan.

 

[Glider]

Hello Glider,
That DOES seem a bit strange doesn't it? That thought had occurred to me as well, but I was figuring that it might have something to do with a particularly flimsy aircraft carrying the armament and unusually tough targets.
Did the P-38 Lightning actually start with only 60 rounds for its cannon? The ammunition load for wartime models was 150 rounds and it was the only USAAF fighter to carry a 20 mm. I figure the P-39 Airacobra really doesn't count because its 20 mm was a British specification and US spec aircraft would have had a 37 mm.

- Ivan.

I'm pretty sure that the first P38's had 60rpg and I thought that the Japanese moved to a larger drum initially 90 then again up to 120 rounds which isn't much less than the Spit and other allied aircraft.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I'm pretty sure that the first P38's had 60rpg and I thought that the Japanese moved to a larger drum initially 90 then again up to 120 rounds which isn't much less than the Spit and other allied aircraft.

Hello Glider,
I will do some checking about the P-38. I believe it started life with a 23 mm Madsen gun but no idea of the ammunition capacity.
From my notes on the A6M series, the early A6M2 would have had only 60 round drums. Eventually the ammunition load was increased to a 100 round drum and after that, it went to a 125 round belt. Firing rate dropped slightly from around 500-520 rounds/minute down to about 480 rounds/minute. I believe this change happened with the switch to the long barrel Type 99-2.
Eventually the A6M2 types got a larger amount of cannon ammunition as well, but it wasn't the same A6M2 as fought at Coral Sea and Midway. It was by that time only built as a Fighter Bomber version by Nakajima. I know the book that should have the details but I don't happen to know where that book is at the moment.

- Ivan.

 

[ThomasP]

In response to Ivan1GFP post#1046,

I think the first few US P-38s to be fitted with the 20mm (very late Ds?, very early Es?) used a 60-round drum, but I do not know if any of that variant saw combat. The model of P-38 (model 322? without turbocharger) intended to be sold to the UK used a 60-round drum (it is noted in the weight&balance sheet).

As for the Soviet 20mm weapons, all I can say is that I think I remember reading that the early production fighter aircraft fitted with the engines based on the Hispano Suiza 12Y, (at least in the aircraft also fitted with a 20mm firing through the propeller shaft) used a 60-round drum. I do not know how authoritative the source was or how these engine/gun/magazine installations evolved over time in the Soviet air forces.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Shortround6, in response to your post#1042

I do not think you are reading too much into what Gunther Rall said.

 

[ThomasP]

In response to XBe02Drvr post#1044, and to Ivan1GFP post#1046,

Ivan1GFP I agree with your assessment of 20/20 hindsight, and raise you my God's Eye In The Sky comment.

XBe02Drvr, first see my comment immediately above. My main quibble (for lack of a better word) relative to the Thatch Weave is that neither I nor anyone else that I know have been able to simulate it in either an air-air combat board game or in a computer flight sim, unless it was a 2x Wildcat vs 1x Zero scenario. I also once spoke with a friend who taught air-air maneuver tactics in the USN in the 1980s and 1990s, and his comment on the Thatch Weave was that "it didn't work that way". At the time it was just part of a normal conversation so I did not think that much of it, but what I have learned since makes me wonder. Possibly what Ivan1GFP said in his post#1046 explains some of my questioning of popular accounts?

 

[wuzak]

Hello Glider,
I will do some checking about the P-38. I believe it started life with a 23 mm Madsen gun but no idea of the ammunition capacity.

It was also supposed to, at one stage, have the 37mm cannon too.

Proposals by Bell leading up to the P-39 program at times also used the Madsen, as well as an unnamed 25mm cannon.

 

[Shortround6]

As for the Soviet 20mm weapons, all I can say is that I think I remember reading that the early production fighter aircraft fitted with the engines based on the Hispano Suiza 12Y, (at least in the aircraft also fitted with a 20mm firing through the propeller shaft) used a 60-round drum. I do not know how authoritative the source was or how these engine/gun/magazine installations evolved over time in the Soviet air forces.

it may depend on the translation. The Russian 20mm guns were belt feed, at least any that made it into WW II, however

There is a rotary cage or drum around the receiver of the gun that is used to pull the ammo out of the belt. This gives a more gradual pull on rim as it comes out of the links, especially considering the rate of fire this gun used.

Depending on how good the translation from Russian to English (or other language) is this "drum" may be confused with a normal feed drum.
There are a lot of, shall we say, less than optimum, translations even in books about Russian equipement. It may have been correct in Russian but the translation sometimes makes no sense or uses a term that causes confusion.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

neither I nor anyone else that I know have been able to simulate it in either an air-air combat board game or in a computer flight sim, unless it was a 2x Wildcat vs 1x Zero scenario. I also once spoke with a friend who taught air-air maneuver tactics in the USN in the 1980s and 1990s, and his comment on the Thatch Weave was that "it didn't work that way"

There are many details of the flight dynamics of tactical aircraft, especially in high performance maneuvering, that are not accurately depicted in board games and computer flight sim programs, especially if they've been reconstructed from historical statistics. Just too many variables.
And the ACM options of a Tomcat or Hornet pilot don't bear much analogy in detail to an F4F. The presence of guided and homing weapons is a game changer. And in a guns-only environment, a tactic that depends on accurate deflection shooting from the forward quarter is not the best option at jet speeds and ranges. Besides, with their high energy capabilities, these jets have better options. In the 70s, I used to work in support of a squadron that taught ACM in F4s, pre-Tomcat. Rode through a few episodes of "turn n' burn" while trying to learn to tweak the radar set in the trainer.
Some of the instructors there allowed as how the Thach weave was brilliant in its time, but it wasn't pertinent to modern ACM.
I think I'll stick to the descriptions I got from guys who'd been there and done it.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Ivan1GFP]

XBe02Drvr, first see my comment immediately above. My main quibble (for lack of a better word) relative to the Thatch Weave is that neither I nor anyone else that I know have been able to simulate it in either an air-air combat board game or in a computer flight sim, unless it was a 2x Wildcat vs 1x Zero scenario. I also once spoke with a friend who taught air-air maneuver tactics in the USN in the 1980s and 1990s, and his comment on the Thatch Weave was that "it didn't work that way". At the time it was just part of a normal conversation so I did not think that much of it, but what I have learned since makes me wonder. Possibly what Ivan1GFP said in his post#1046 explains some of my questioning of popular accounts?

Hello ThomasP,
What exactly didn't work when trying to reproduce the Thach Weave in Flight Simulators?
I believe I have some fairly good flight models for both the A6M2 and the F4F-4.
The low speed acceleration of the A6M2 is a touch low but it should not affect things.
It sounds from the descriptions that there isn't anything particularly difficult to execute as far as maneuvers.

Hello Glider,
From what I could find in a book by Robert Mikesh.....
Type 99 cannon models are as follows: (Type 99-1 are short barrel versions and Type 99-2 are long barrel.)
Type 99-1 Model 3 had 60 round drums with cyclic rate of 520 rounds/minute
This would have been the typical armament of the A6M2 and earlier and early A6M3-32 and A6M3-22
Type 99-2 Model 3 started with a 100 round drum with a cyclic rate of 490 rounds / minute.
They were installed starting with A6M3-22 and A6M5.
I believe they were also installed in some A6M3-32 but the book does not mention it.
Type 99-2 Model 4 was belt fed and had a cyclic rate of 500 rounds/minute
They were installed in the later A6M5 models and A6M6 and A6M7.
Type 99-2 Model 5 was belt fed and had a cyclic rate of 750 rounds/minute
It would have been installed in the A6M8 but unconfirmed.

I have seen references which list the firing rates of some Type 99-2 long barrel guns as being pretty low initially but improved as time went on.
Another interesting thing is that the A6M2 Sen Baku (Fighter Bomber) is supposed to be using 100 round drums for its 20 mm cannon but seem (according to models and paintings) to be using the short barrel Type 99-1 cannon for a variation that is not listed above.

- Ivan.

 

[Glider]

Many thanks for this.

 

[martinrn]

Agree entirely with Wozac. Both planes were actually failures for Northern Europe. Both had very poor high altitude performance. At altitude, every German plane outclassed them easily. However, large investments were made in their R&D and production facilities, so something had to be done with them. Rather than garbage them, they were re-purposed into ground attack planes. The Typhoon excelled at this and far surpassed the P-40 in this role. The Typhoon was also the only Allied plane that had the speed at low altitudes to catch the V-1 rocket and FW-190 recon planes. The P-40's were more successful in the Pacific, where they could use their superiour dive speed to utilize the swoop & climb tactics first instituted by Chenault's Flying Tigers. All US fighters had superiour dive speed performance than Japanese planes. Japanese were never able to overcome these tactics. As long as US fighters did not get enticed into a turning dogfight, which all Japanese planes excelled at, they would usually win. With most air combat in Northern Europe taking place at high altitude, the P-40 did not have the performance. It could not utilize the swoop & climb tactics against the Germans that it used against the Japanese. It was virtually worthless in the high altitude fight, as was the Typhoon. However, the Typhoon became a formidable ground attack plane, which the P-40 never did. However, the P-40 was better in the Pacific.

 

[ThomasP]

In response to Shortround6 post#1053 and Ivan1GFP post#1046

I think Shortrund6 is correct as to my misinterpretation of the Russian aircraft manual. After I read your posts I did a search of "soviet russian drum fed cannon" and found very good descriptions of the cannon and MG 'bird-cage' loading system which was fed from a belt. Thanks guys.

 

[Elvis]

...when given the choice...always.....

...P40's! For the win! ( )


(...and in case you're curious, that piece of art can be purchased HERE)

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Agree entirely with Wozac. Both planes were actually failures for Northern Europe. Both had very poor high altitude performance. At altitude, every German plane outclassed them easily. However, large investments were made in their R&D and production facilities, so something had to be done with them. Rather than garbage them, they were re-purposed into ground attack planes. The Typhoon excelled at this and far surpassed the P-40 in this role. The Typhoon was also the only Allied plane that had the speed at low altitudes to catch the V-1 rocket and FW-190 recon planes. The P-40's were more successful in the Pacific, where they could use their superiour dive speed to utilize the swoop & climb tactics first instituted by Chenault's Flying Tigers. All US fighters had superiour dive speed performance than Japanese planes. Japanese were never able to overcome these tactics. As long as US fighters did not get enticed into a turning dogfight, which all Japanese planes excelled at, they would usually win. With most air combat in Northern Europe taking place at high altitude, the P-40 did not have the performance. It could not utilize the swoop & climb tactics against the Germans that it used against the Japanese. It was virtually worthless in the high altitude fight, as was the Typhoon. However, the Typhoon became a formidable ground attack plane, which the P-40 never did. However, the P-40 was better in the Pacific.

Hello Martinrn,
In general, this isn't a bad summary, but in specifics, it falls apart pretty fast.
The P-40 actually remained a front line fighter in the CBI theater for quite some time and later versions such as P-40N were at least equal in performance to most Japanese designs, especially in CBI.
You will find in reviewing tests of Koga's A6M2 that the conclusion was that the Wildcat did NOT have a diving acceleration or speed advantage over the A6M2. The zoom climb of A6M2 was also noted as being very good. There were quite a few late war Japanese fighters that did not have the maximum dive speed limitations as the A6M and Ki 43 series.
Not all the Japanese aircraft were good turn fighters. The Ki 44 Shoki, Ki 61 Hien, and (at least in the opinion of the Japanese) the J2M Raiden were not so good at that style of fighting.
As for the P-40 being better in the Pacific, there simply is no comparison because the Typhoon was never operated in the PTO.

As far as I am concerned, the two subjects of this thread were simply different aircraft in many performance and quality aspects.
One can find enough advantages in either aircraft to argue that it was better, but I believe it is better just to understand the differences and what they imply.
In a head to head fight, assuming the Typhoon was working well, I would pick the Typhoon because of firepower and because speed advantages would allow it to control the fight, but one has to also remember that the P-40 was a viable fighter against the enemy for much longer than the Typhoon was. If I was running an air force, for most of their operation lives, I would pick a force of 1000 P-40s over a force of 1000 Typhoons because of the Typhoon had way too many reliability and structural issues for much of its life.

- Ivan.