Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (1 Viewer)

[Kevin J]

Ok, so we are saying here that the Typhoons did have plenty of missions to fly from England in the early years? Because one of the reasons given as to why the P-40F had so much better of a combat record (so many more victory claims) is that the Typhoons didn't have any targets to tangle with. So are you saying that is wrong and they did? Were they routinely flying missions?

Statistics. 3300 built 1100 losses. 2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories. 1/3 Fighters. So max 2200 available for combat duty. 730 for fighter duty. 260 victories IIRC. So about 3 fighters produced for every 1 aerial victory, which is about the average for Anglo-American fighters. N.B. Luftwaffe, 33,000 Bf 109's produced, 12,000 aerial victories or 2.75 to 1.

 

[Schweik]

I'm not sure if I buy the "2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories" part. Unless there is near total air superiority or they aren't trained for air combat at all, even fighter bomber units will usually get into air combat. In the Med it was typical to send one squadron as cover for two other squadrons flying fighter bomber missions, otherwise the latter would get wiped out. Even Hurricane units flying FB missions usually got some victories through 1942.

One of the reasons I thought Merlin P-40 and Typhoon made for a pretty good comparison is that they both had a similar mission profile (mostly used as fighter bombers with some fighter sweep, CAP and escort missions in the mix) and were produced in similar numbers. Vs. ~3,300 Typhoons, there were ~2,000 Merlin engined P-40s produced (1311 P-40F and 700 P-40L) almost all built in 1941 and 1942, and almost all of them used in combat. I don't know how many were lost, does anyone? They saw heavy use, equipping 5 US Fighter groups active in the Med (33rd, 57th, 325th, 324th, 79th) , 1 independent US fighter squadron (99th FS- Tuskegee), 1 US fighter bomber group (the 27th FBG), two RAF squadrons (RAF 260 and RAAF 3 sqn) and 2 squadrons of Free French (GC II/5). Plus the US 49th FG used them in the Pacific, mostly in the Solomons area. With three squadrons per US fighter group, at the peak around mid 1943 that is a total of 23 squadrons all involved pretty heavily in combat from mid 1942 through the third quarter of 1944, but mostly in 1943. However as P-40Fs were phased in gradually, and new fighter types were phased after them, in it was usually fewer units flying the P-40F at any one time. Probably about 12-15 squadrons that had them on average through their combat life.

In the Med by my count combining US, RAF, and Free French unit victories they claimed 665 victories, about 90% of them fighters*, mostly Bf 109 and MC 202.

Most of the USAAF and British / Commonwealth units that used the P-40 F/L / Kittyhawk II were primarily flying fighter bomber units, in fact 2/3 is probably a pretty good ratio of fighter bomber vs other sorties, though maybe for some it was closer to 50/50.

Only one US Fighter group, the 325th, was primarily flying fighter escort missions and even they also did fly fighter-bomber sorties. Maybe their ratio was reversed, i.e. 2/3 escort and 1/3 fighter-bomber sorties but they flew plenty of the latter. They scored 133 victory claims in just 7 months.

33rd and 57th FG were more typical, flying P-40s in a mix of Fighter bomber, escort, and fighter sweep missions for a longer period of time,
33rd from Nov 42 to Feb 44 for 137 victory claims
57th from Aug 42 to Jan 44 for 144 victory claims

And two others, the 79th and 324th, flew mostly fighter-bomber sorties, maybe 80% of the time. Even they managed victories, 324th making 66 victory claims in just over a year with the P-40 (from March 43 to July 44) and 79th claiming 118 victories (from Dec 42 - March 44).

The only one which scored no victories was the 27th FBG, who used P-40s for five months from Feb 44 through June 44, exclusively for FB missions. They were formerly using P-51 dive bombers (A-36) and had not been trained for air combat. As did P-47s (an aircraft in some ways more comparable to the Typhoon) when the US fighter groups listed above switched to using them. 325th FG continued scoring victories at a slightly better rate flying P-47s (they shot down 133 'confirmed' with the P-40 and 154 'confirmed' with the P-47).

*For example, according to the 325th FG records, of their 133 claims while flying the P-40, 95 of them were for Bf 109s, and 26 were for MC 202s, for 90.9% of all victories claimed.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Maybe they should have brought some Soviet pilots in for cross-training.

Nice try. Ignores the fact that the same Cobra, with all of its foibles, was a whole different beast in the hot, humid Med from what it was in the cold, dry Russian steppes. What worked well for Ivan may not work so well for Tony. Your tongue is about to poke a hole in your cheek, methinks.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[michael rauls]

I'm not sure if I buy the "2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories" part. Unless there is near total air superiority or they aren't trained for air combat at all, even fighter bomber units will usually get into air combat. In the Med it was typical to send one squadron as cover for two other squadrons flying fighter bomber missions, otherwise the latter would get wiped out. Even Hurricane units flying FB missions usually got some victories through 1942.

One of the reasons I thought Merlin P-40 and Typhoon made for a pretty good comparison is that they both had a similar mission profile (mostly used as fighter bombers with some fighter sweep, CAP and escort missions in the mix) and were produced in similar numbers. Vs. ~3,300 Typhoons, there were ~2,000 Merlin engined P-40s produced (1311 P-40F and 700 P-40L) almost all built in 1941 and 1942, and almost all of them used in combat. I don't know how many were lost, does anyone? They saw heavy use, equipping 5 US Fighter groups active in the Med (33rd, 57th, 325th, 324th, 79th) , 1 independent US fighter squadron (99th FS- Tuskegee), 1 US fighter bomber group (the 27th FBG), two RAF squadrons (RAF 260 and RAAF 3 sqn) and 2 squadrons of Free French (GC II/5). Plus the US 49th FG used them in the Pacific, mostly in the Solomons area. With three squadrons per US fighter group, at the peak around mid 1943 that is a total of 23 squadrons all involved pretty heavily in combat from mid 1942 through the third quarter of 1944, but mostly in 1943. However as P-40Fs were phased in gradually, and new fighter types were phased after them, in it was usually fewer units flying the P-40F at any one time. Probably about 12-15 squadrons that had them on average through their combat life.

In the Med by my count combining US, RAF, and Free French unit victories they claimed 665 victories, about 90% of them fighters*, mostly Bf 109 and MC 202.

Most of the USAAF and British / Commonwealth units that used the P-40 F/L / Kittyhawk II were primarily flying fighter bomber units, in fact 2/3 is probably a pretty good ratio of fighter bomber vs other sorties, though maybe for some it was closer to 50/50.

Only one US Fighter group, the 325th, was primarily flying fighter escort missions and even they also did fly fighter-bomber sorties. Maybe their ratio was reversed, i.e. 2/3 escort and 1/3 fighter-bomber sorties but they flew plenty of the latter. They scored 133 victory claims in just 7 months.

33rd and 57th FG were more typical, flying P-40s in a mix of Fighter bomber, escort, and fighter sweep missions for a longer period of time,
33rd from Nov 42 to Feb 44 for 137 victory claims
57th from Aug 42 to Jan 44 for 144 victory claims

And two others, the 79th and 324th, flew mostly fighter-bomber sorties, maybe 80% of the time. Even they managed victories, 324th making 66 victory claims in just over a year with the P-40 (from March 43 to July 44) and 79th claiming 118 victories (from Dec 42 - March 44).

The only one which scored no victories was the 27th FBG, who used P-40s for five months from Feb 44 through June 44, exclusively for FB missions. They were formerly using P-51 dive bombers (A-36) and had not been trained for air combat. As did P-47s (an aircraft in some ways more comparable to the Typhoon) when the US fighter groups listed above switched to using them. 325th FG continued scoring victories at a slightly better rate flying P-47s (they shot down 133 'confirmed' with the P-40 and 154 'confirmed' with the P-47).

*For example, according to the 325th FG records, of their 133 claims while flying the P-40, 95 of them were for Bf 109s, and 26 were for MC 202s, for 90.9% of all victories claimed.

That's quite an impressive record for the p40s by any measure. All the more so considering the bulk of what has been written about them over the years.

 

[Schweik]

Nice try. Ignores the fact that the same Cobra, with all of its foibles, was a whole different beast in the hot, humid Med from what it was in the cold, dry Russian steppes. What worked well for Ivan may not work so well for Tony. Your tongue is about to poke a hole in your cheek, methinks.
Cheers,
Wes

"Nice try?" Lol. I really don't get where some of y'all are coming from half the time. I was kidding a little but only about the political feasibility of it, I really was not being tongue in cheek in terms of the training angle. I'm quite serious. It just seemed unlikely to bring Soviet pilots in even though they did work with the Soviets on the design of late model P-39s and especially, the P-63.

What I meant specifically is that US pilots expressed a dismal level of trust in flying the P-39 which I suspect came down to training. There is a quote from one of the pilots in MAW IV to that effect though I don't remember it verbatim, the gist was the US pilots were afraid to put the P-39s through their paces (apparently with good reason given the number of fatal crashes) and couldn't wait to get out of them. The mystery of why the Soviets did so well with the P-39 and liked it so much is something many have tried to get to the bottom of. I certainly can't claim to know definitively but my theory is that it came down largely to training and experience in the following ways:

• they were more used to 'twitchier' planes since many Soviet pilots transitioned from planes like the I-16, LaGG-3, or MiG 3 which were notoriously prone to stalls and spins.
• they were forced to use it in Russia where for all it's faults it was one of their best available fighter options (they had Yak-1 and Yak 7 but not enough, and many pilots were going into combat in 1942 and even 1943 in far less capable types) vs. in the Med where there were other options, (though the US were forced to use P-39s in the Pacific for a while). So in Russia in other words there was a kind of training crucible where pilots either died or figured out how to fly P-39s in combat (or both, in many cases).
• they spent a long time, including an initial 4 month workup, doing transition training and figuring out the P-39, where as some US and Allied units had relatively little transition training. The same was true for P-40s as well and they also had trouble, but eventually figured them out I think largely with British / Commonwealth help (most US units and in particular unit leaders embedded with RAF squadrons before going independent)

Your theory that the P-39 didn't fly as well in hot weather doesn't seem likely a complete answer to me. Do you have evidence of that? I can imagine some differences but I am doubtful that would fully account for the differences.

People think it's always winter in Russia but they have summer every year, and summers were hot in particular in certain parts of the Russian Front, notably in the Caucasas around the Kuban and Crimean zones where P-39s scored some of their more famous victories.

The high today in Tiblisi is expected to be 93 F / 34 C, and it's not even August yet.

 

[Schweik]

At any one time by my estimate for Merlin P-40s in the Med (at roughly ~15 aircraft per US squadron, with 10-12 serviceable typically at any given time) 220 - 340 aircraft active in combat units during their combat life. I don't know how long a plane lasted in a front line combat unit in the Med before being deemed war-weary or getting shot down or written off, but they seemed to go through them pretty quickly. At one point they were so low on available replacements they had to substitute a squadron of P-40Ks in the 57th.

I would guess about 3 months would be a pretty typical average lifespan in combat for a fighter aircraft in that Theater (maybe including an engine change). If that is accurate it would mean around ~900 - 1100 fighters used up per year on average, notably probably in the peak usage period of 1943. They were only used for a few months in 1942 and 1944 (and by fewer units), but this should account for most of the production run. Again that part is all just guesswork though.

 

[Schweik]

They also did fly some long range combat missions to Soviet airfields, IIRC these were maybe some of the Romanian oil missions, with B-24s escorted by Mustangs or P-38s. So they probably rubbed elbows a bit there with Soviet fighter pilots. But P-39s didn't have that kind of range.

 

[Schweik]

That's quite an impressive record for the p40s by any measure. All the more so considering the bulk of what has been written about them over the years.

P-40s had one really serious major Tactical and Operational limitation: they couldn't fly well at high altitude. This meant they routinely got attacked from above, and it limited the way they could be used. It couldn't escort heavy bombers on high altitude strikes and couldn't completely win air superiority over Bf 109s, for example in defending the air base.

But they were dangerous to tangle with at lower altitudes as many Luftwaffe pilots readily admitted, and the Merlin engined ones extended their performance ceiling well into medium altitude ranges, up to 20,000 ft, which made them much more viable in the Med since the typical bomber altitude was quite a bit lower than that, with dive bombers and fighter bombers attacking down to Sea level and medium bombers often flying in at 5,000 - 8,000 ft.

The Germans and Italians still typically had the upper hand in attacking from above, even against the Spitfire Mk Vs this seemed to be the case, but the P-38s and (especially) the Spit IX's which arrived in 43, could hang with them at high altitude, taking away the last real Luftwaffe advantage. In 44 the P-47s and then P-51s came into the Theater and the latter in particular seemed to have a very good record against the German fighters.

The Bf 109 was a truly genius design but I think it was reaching it's limits by 1944. I know that won't go over well around here but it's just my $.02.

 

[fubar57]

Just to throw another number out there, the USAAF lost 2150 fighters to combat and accidents during 1944 in the Mediterranean Theatre. I don't know the breakdown of types

 

[Schweik]

Just to throw another number out there, the USAAF lost 2150 fighters to combat and accidents during 1944 in the Mediterranean Theatre. I don't know the breakdown of types

I believe there were 2 x FG of P-38s, 4 x P-47s, 2 x of Spitfires, 3 x of P-40s by the middle of 1944

 

[Kevin J]

I'm not sure if I buy the "2/3 used for ground attack so don't expect aerial victories" part. Unless there is near total air superiority or they aren't trained for air combat at all, even fighter bomber units will usually get into air combat. In the Med it was typical to send one squadron as cover for two other squadrons flying fighter bomber missions, otherwise the latter would get wiped out. Even Hurricane units flying FB missions usually got some victories through 1942.

One of the reasons I thought Merlin P-40 and Typhoon made for a pretty good comparison is that they both had a similar mission profile (mostly used as fighter bombers with some fighter sweep, CAP and escort missions in the mix) and were produced in similar numbers. Vs. ~3,300 Typhoons, there were ~2,000 Merlin engined P-40s produced (1311 P-40F and 700 P-40L) almost all built in 1941 and 1942, and almost all of them used in combat. I don't know how many were lost, does anyone? They saw heavy use, equipping 5 US Fighter groups active in the Med (33rd, 57th, 325th, 324th, 79th) , 1 independent US fighter squadron (99th FS- Tuskegee), 1 US fighter bomber group (the 27th FBG), two RAF squadrons (RAF 260 and RAAF 3 sqn) and 2 squadrons of Free French (GC II/5). Plus the US 49th FG used them in the Pacific, mostly in the Solomons area. With three squadrons per US fighter group, at the peak around mid 1943 that is a total of 23 squadrons all involved pretty heavily in combat from mid 1942 through the third quarter of 1944, but mostly in 1943. However as P-40Fs were phased in gradually, and new fighter types were phased after them, in it was usually fewer units flying the P-40F at any one time. Probably about 12-15 squadrons that had them on average through their combat life.

In the Med by my count combining US, RAF, and Free French unit victories they claimed 665 victories, about 90% of them fighters*, mostly Bf 109 and MC 202.

Most of the USAAF and British / Commonwealth units that used the P-40 F/L / Kittyhawk II were primarily flying fighter bomber units, in fact 2/3 is probably a pretty good ratio of fighter bomber vs other sorties, though maybe for some it was closer to 50/50.

Only one US Fighter group, the 325th, was primarily flying fighter escort missions and even they also did fly fighter-bomber sorties. Maybe their ratio was reversed, i.e. 2/3 escort and 1/3 fighter-bomber sorties but they flew plenty of the latter. They scored 133 victory claims in just 7 months.

33rd and 57th FG were more typical, flying P-40s in a mix of Fighter bomber, escort, and fighter sweep missions for a longer period of time,
33rd from Nov 42 to Feb 44 for 137 victory claims
57th from Aug 42 to Jan 44 for 144 victory claims

And two others, the 79th and 324th, flew mostly fighter-bomber sorties, maybe 80% of the time. Even they managed victories, 324th making 66 victory claims in just over a year with the P-40 (from March 43 to July 44) and 79th claiming 118 victories (from Dec 42 - March 44).

The only one which scored no victories was the 27th FBG, who used P-40s for five months from Feb 44 through June 44, exclusively for FB missions. They were formerly using P-51 dive bombers (A-36) and had not been trained for air combat. As did P-47s (an aircraft in some ways more comparable to the Typhoon) when the US fighter groups listed above switched to using them. 325th FG continued scoring victories at a slightly better rate flying P-47s (they shot down 133 'confirmed' with the P-40 and 154 'confirmed' with the P-47).

*For example, according to the 325th FG records, of their 133 claims while flying the P-40, 95 of them were for Bf 109s, and 26 were for MC 202s, for 90.9% of all victories claimed.

I'm probably being over generous to the Typhoon and its production to loss ratio is like the Thunderbolt at 4.5:1. Imagine a flight of four Typhoons going into attack in pairs. The first 2 get away with it, but when the second pair go in the AA is on the ball, and either the 3rd or 4th in the flight gets shot down. Losses were horrendous. Top cover was either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.

In the Med, I have USAAF victories of 592 and British Commonwealth of 420 for the Kittyhawk / Warhawk versions. Don't know what the Tomahawk totals were. Never added them up.

So the cost effectiveness of the Warhawk is far superior to the Typhoon and Kittyhawk as a production:loss ratio.

 

[Kevin J]

"Nice try?" Lol. I really don't get where some of y'all are coming from half the time. I was kidding a little but only about the political feasibility of it, I really was not being tongue in cheek in terms of the training angle. I'm quite serious. It just seemed unlikely to bring Soviet pilots in even though they did work with the Soviets on the design of late model P-39s and especially, the P-63.

What I meant specifically is that US pilots expressed a dismal level of trust in flying the P-39 which I suspect came down to training. There is a quote from one of the pilots in MAW IV to that effect though I don't remember it verbatim, the gist was the US pilots were afraid to put the P-39s through their paces (apparently with good reason given the number of fatal crashes) and couldn't wait to get out of them. The mystery of why the Soviets did so well with the P-39 and liked it so much is something many have tried to get to the bottom of. I certainly can't claim to know definitively but my theory is that it came down largely to training and experience in the following ways:

• they were more used to 'twitchier' planes since many Soviet pilots transitioned from planes like the I-16, LaGG-3, or MiG 3 which were notoriously prone to stalls and spins.
• they were forced to use it in Russia where for all it's faults it was one of their best available fighter options (they had Yak-1 and Yak 7 but not enough, and many pilots were going into combat in 1942 and even 1943 in far less capable types) vs. in the Med where there were other options, (though the US were forced to use P-39s in the Pacific for a while). So in Russia in other words there was a kind of training crucible where pilots either died or figured out how to fly P-39s in combat (or both, in many cases).
• they spent a long time, including an initial 4 month workup, doing transition training and figuring out the P-39, where as some US and Allied units had relatively little transition training. The same was true for P-40s as well and they also had trouble, but eventually figured them out I think largely with British / Commonwealth help (most US units and in particular unit leaders embedded with RAF squadrons before going independent)

Your theory that the P-39 didn't fly as well in hot weather doesn't seem likely a complete answer to me. Do you have evidence of that? I can imagine some differences but I am doubtful that would fully account for the differences.

People think it's always winter in Russia but they have summer every year, and summers were hot in particular in certain parts of the Russian Front, notably in the Caucasas around the Kuban and Crimean zones where P-39s scored some of their more famous victories.

The high today in Tiblisi is expected to be 93 F / 34 C, and it's not even August yet.

My take on the Russian successes with the Cobra is that they spent 6 months wringing out the bugs before going operational, also that the Russians had a more kamikaze attitude to combat, a fatalistic view on life.

 

[Kevin J]

At any one time by my estimate for Merlin P-40s in the Med (at roughly ~15 aircraft per US squadron, with 10-12 serviceable typically at any given time) 220 - 340 aircraft active in combat units during their combat life. I don't know how long a plane lasted in a front line combat unit in the Med before being deemed war-weary or getting shot down or written off, but they seemed to go through them pretty quickly. At one point they were so low on available replacements they had to substitute a squadron of P-40Ks in the 57th.

I would guess about 3 months would be a pretty typical average lifespan in combat for a fighter aircraft in that Theater (maybe including an engine change). If that is accurate it would mean around ~900 - 1100 fighters used up per year on average, notably probably in the peak usage period of 1943. They were only used for a few months in 1942 and 1944 (and by fewer units), but this should account for most of the production run. Again that part is all just guesswork though.

The RAF reckoned 50 planes were needed for 6 months in the front line.

 

[Schweik]

I'm probably being over generous to the Typhoon and its production to loss ratio is like the Thunderbolt at 4.5:1. Imagine a flight of four Typhoons going into attack in pairs. The first 2 get away with it, but when the second pair go in the AA is on the ball, and either the 3rd or 4th in the flight gets shot down. Losses were horrendous. Top cover was either Spitfires or Thunderbolts.

In the Med, I have USAAF victories of 592 and British Commonwealth of 420 for the Kittyhawk / Warhawk versions. Don't know what the Tomahawk totals were. Never added them up.

So the cost effectiveness of the Warhawk is far superior to the Typhoon and Warhawk as a production:loss ratio.

I believe the 592 number is in part due to not counting the 17 victory claims that the 99th FS made while flying P-40s, plus a few other minor differences on specific squadron numbers due to some overlap with other fighter types (at some points you had both P-47 and P-40s being used by different squadrons within the same FG). I have 615 for US units (this is from the 17 by the 99th FS plus 6 from various other FGs. In addition four other Allied quadrons flew the Merlin engined P-40:

RAF 260 Sqn claimed 23 victories while flying P-40F and L
RAAF 3 Sqn claimed 19 victories while flying P-40F and L Source

Free French GC II/5 (two squadrons) claimed 8 victories flying P-40F and L

I don't have the total for RAF Tomahawk kills either but could / should add them up from MAW when I have the time.

 

[Schweik]

My take on the Russian successes with the Cobra is that they spent 6 months wringing out the bugs before going operational, also that the Russians had a more kamikaze attitude to combat, a fatalistic view on life.

Yeah that is basically it. But I think you have to also consider that a lot of them were used to the really twitchy Russian planes like I-16, LaGG-3, MiG-3 etc.

 

[Schweik]

The RAF reckoned 50 planes were needed for 6 months in the front line.

Per squadron? That would be about 1500 planes per year which is a bit more than my guess but close enough to it.

 

[fubar57]

Compare Spitfire losses to Typhoon losses for 83 Group. Not a lot of difference though sortie difference was half

 

[Schweik]

Compare Spitfire losses to Typhoon losses for 83 Group. Not a lot of difference

View attachment 542703​

True but Spits flying a little more than twice the number of Sorties, and claiming 306 enemy aircraft. Even the Mustangs claimed 85 with only 4,300 sorties.

 

[fubar57]

Also the Spitfire only carried 1 bomb per 18 sorties so they would most likely be up where the enemy fighters were

 

[pbehn]

Per squadron? That would be about 1500 planes per year which is a bit more than my guess but close enough to it.

For any force, divide the number of aircraft produced by the number of squadrons using them, the loss or wastage rate is huge. losses in combat are a small part of it but a very decisive part.