Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (3 Viewers)

[Shortround6]

A few accounts claim (without giving any sources) that the Merlin powered P-40s went to North Africa to simplify the supply situation. I have no idea if this is true or not. On one hand it makes a bit of sense to try to standardize the P-40s in use by US forces, But there were certainly plenty of Allison powered planes not only in the theater but in use by US forces. Or perhaps (aside from 1-2 squadrons sent to Guadalcanal ?) they intended to keep all the Merlin powered planes in one theater rather than scatter then all over the world.

I am just giving you something I read, I am not taking sides on this issue.

As far as the P-47 goes. It's engine wasn't unknown to the US Air Force in Italy (it was a bit late for NA) as the same basic engine was used in the B-26 Marauder, just without the turbo.
So all of the stuff like cylinders, valves, pistons, rings , connecting rods, etc will pretty much swap back and forth. A few of the allies also used R-2800s in the Med, like the SAAF.

 

[Mad Dog]

P-40F/L got more of the escort missions, for example to Sardinia.

As with the DAF in the Desert, the P-40s got the escort job because they had much better range than the Hurricane or the Spitfire. The Spitfires originally sent to the Desert were kept back for interception and air-superiority over the battlefield. The P-40s over Sardinia were running diversionary raids whilst the Spitfires from Malta were doing the real air fighting over Sicily. See Operation Mincemeat for the Allied strategy. By the time the Allies landed on Sardinia in September 1943 the Nazis had mainly fled. I have five ME109s from III/JG77 lost during the whole invasion, but USAAF P-40 units made crazy claims, like 21 ME109s in a single combat (325th Fighter Group, 30th July 1943)! And, IIRC, the P-38s did most of the sweeps over Sardinia that cleared the Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe defenders before the P-40s even mounted their first escort. Sorry, not going to be convinced by over-claiming when it doesn't match reported Axis losses.

US fighter groups flying P-40s went up against the elite JG 27 which they basically destroyed....

JG27 never recovered from the loss of their three best pilots in late 1942; Steinhausen to a Hurricane of 127Sq RAF, Stahlschmidt to Spitfire of 601Sq RAF, and Marseille to mechanical failure. No Warhawks involved there. By the time the Yank P-40s got involved, JG27 was hollowed out by two years of combat against the Commonwealth squadrons. It was so bad that the majority of JG27 was withdrawn to Sicily in October 1943. Indeed, the best day for the USAAF P-40Fs in the theatre was 19th April 1943, when 46 USAAF P-40Fs met a German air convoy of 60 Ju 52 transport aircraft and 21 fighters travelling from Tunisia to Sicily. But the P-40s had RAF Spitfires for top-cover. The Spitfires were the ones that shot down 16 of the escorts so the P-40s could get on with shooting down the transports. Another notable indication of how the P-40F wasn't needed after the arrival of the Spitfire V in 1942 was that RAF units like 112Sq swapped their Kittyhawk IIs for Kittyhawk IIIs as the IIIs had better low altitude performance for ground-attacks.

".....JG 77....

Again, after being ground down by the RAF.

.....JG 2 and several other top Luftwaffe fighter groups flying the latest Bf 109 and Fw 190s, in addition to Italian pilots flying C.202 and C.205 which were good enough to give RAF Spitfire units plenty of trouble.

The Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica units in Italy themselves rated the Spitfire VIII and IX as their deadliest opponents. That's even compared to the P-51B and P-47D. I cannot find a single mention of an Axis pilot in the theatre saying he feared meeting a Warhawk, and that's even with the poor quality pilots being drafted in to Italian-based units by late 1943. So poor was the P-40 as an interceptor by late 1943 it was replaced in that role in Italy by the P-47, and the Thunderbolt in 1943 was hardly noted for it's good climb rate! The Warhawk was so poor at altitude that the P-40s could only survive over Guadacanal because of Grumman Wildcats flying top-cover.

And yet it was in heavy use in 1944, long after they had retired the Hurricane from front line duties even as a bomber.

The RAF was still using plenty of Hurricanes in the CBI right up to VJ-day. The Indian AF still had eight squadrons operational as front-line fighter-bombers in 1945. And then there was specialist units like 6sq RAF, who were still operating anti-tank Hurricane IVs in the Middle East in 1946! They spent 1994 and 1945 flying Hurricanes on anti-shipping and ground-attacks over the Italian coast, Dalmation Isles, Yugoslavia, Corsica, and Greece, right up to VE-Day. Even the late model P-40M/N were replaced as fighter-bombers by the USAAF with P-47s in China and the Pacific by early 1945.

They seemed to have failed the test which is why they continued to sit in England instead of being deployed in the Med where they were badly needed (especially if they were ostensibly better than the P-40s which were being so heavily relied on both for fighters and fighter bombers)

RAF Fighter Command jealously kept all the Typhoons in the UK because they were so in demand for low-level interception and later ground-attack. They resisted sending Spitfires to the Med until early 1942, only sending Spitfire Vs when they finally had the promise of Spitfire IXs for home-based squadrons. Even then, there were still 60 RAF squadrons in the UK flying Spitfires when the first ones were sent to Malta! As the 1943 tests with 451Sq showed, the Typhoon was more than capable of operating in the theatre. Did you stop to think that there were still Typhoon units fighting in Germany in 1945 - how many P-40F units were there flying over the Rhine in 1945? Yup, a big, fat zero!

 

[Schweik]

A few accounts claim (without giving any sources) that the Merlin powered P-40s went to North Africa to simplify the supply situation. I have no idea if this is true or not. On one hand it makes a bit of sense to try to standardize the P-40s in use by US forces, But there were certainly plenty of Allison powered planes not only in the theater but in use by US forces. Or perhaps (aside from 1-2 squadrons sent to Guadalcanal ?) they intended to keep all the Merlin powered planes in one theater rather than scatter then all over the world.

I'm pretty certain after a lot of reading on the subject that they were sent to the Med, and hoarded by the Americans (with only 2 British / Commonwealth squadrons getting a couple of hundred of them) because they had the better altitude performance and therefore a better chance against the Bf 109. The F and L had a performance ceiling of about 20'000 ft or just under that. Of the Allison engined P-40s still in use at the time or coming online, the P-40E and K both had a critical altitude somewhere below 14,000 ft, some sources say 12,000 ft. The M, as you know because we've discussed it on here, had a critical altitude closer to 16,000 like the original Tomahawk, and the stripped down (early) version of the N which was used by the RAF in Theater, mostly in Italy, was around 17,000 or slightly better. All bad, basically, but the Merlin powered ones could fight quite a bit higher, maybe as much as 8,000 ft higher than most of the ones in use in the Theater when the Americans arrived.

I am just giving you something I read, I am not taking sides on this issue.

Sides on what? On P-40F vs. Typhoon or something else?

Maybe you can clarify a question for me. I read somewhere that the Spits were being used with the cropped impellers and the shortened wings specifically in the Med but haven't been able to confirm that, is that true or was that done just up in the Channel?

As far as the P-47 goes. It's engine wasn't unknown to the US Air Force in Italy (it was a bit late for NA) as the same basic engine was used in the B-26 Marauder, just without the turbo.
So all of the stuff like cylinders, valves, pistons, rings , connecting rods, etc will pretty much swap back and forth. A few of the allies also used R-2800s in the Med, like the SAAF.

That's interesting about the South Africans, what airplane is that? Venturas? Vickers Warwick?

Ok fair point about the B-26 though I think they came into the Theater around the same time didn't they? But the turbo is kind of a big deal and one of the more maintenance issue prone parts of the P-47 wouldn't you think?

 

[michael rauls]

As with the DAF in the Desert, the P-40s got the escort job because they had much better range than the Hurricane or the Spitfire. The Spitfires originally sent to the Desert were kept back for interception and air-superiority over the battlefield. The P-40s over Sardinia were running diversionary raids whilst the Spitfires from Malta were doing the real air fighting over Sicily. See Operation Mincemeat for the Allied strategy. By the time the Allies landed on Sardinia in September 1943 the Nazis had mainly fled. I have five ME109s from III/JG77 lost during the whole invasion, but USAAF P-40 units made crazy claims, like 21 ME109s in a single combat (325th Fighter Group, 30th July 1943)! And, IIRC, the P-38s did most of the sweeps over Sardinia that cleared the Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe defenders before the P-40s even mounted their first escort. Sorry, not going to be convinced by over-claiming when it doesn't match reported Axis losses.

JG27 never recovered from the loss of their three best pilots in late 1942; Steinhausen to a Hurricane of 127Sq RAF, Stahlschmidt to Spitfire of 601Sq RAF, and Marseille to mechanical failure. No Warhawks involved there. By the time the Yank P-40s got involved, JG27 was hollowed out by two years of combat against the Commonwealth squadrons. It was so bad that the majority of JG27 was withdrawn to Sicily in October 1943. Indeed, the best day for the USAAF P-40Fs in the theatre was 19th April 1943, when 46 USAAF P-40Fs met a German air convoy of 60 Ju 52 transport aircraft and 21 fighters travelling from Tunisia to Sicily. But the P-40s had RAF Spitfires for top-cover. The Spitfires were the ones that shot down 16 of the escorts so the P-40s could get on with shooting down the transports. Another notable indication of how the P-40F wasn't needed after the arrival of the Spitfire V in 1942 was that RAF units like 112Sq swapped their Kittyhawk IIs for Kittyhawk IIIs as the IIIs had better low altitude performance for ground-attacks.

Again, after being ground down by the RAF.

The Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica units in Italy themselves rated the Spitfire VIII and IX as their deadliest opponents. That's even compared to the P-51B and P-47D. I cannot find a single mention of an Axis pilot in the theatre saying he feared meeting a Warhawk, and that's even with the poor quality pilots being drafted in to Italian-based units by late 1943. So poor was the P-40 as an interceptor by late 1943 it was replaced in that role in Italy by the P-47, and the Thunderbolt in 1943 was hardly noted for it's good climb rate! The Warhawk was so poor at altitude that the P-40s could only survive over Guadacanal because of Grumman Wildcats flying top-cover.

The RAF was still using plenty of Hurricanes in the CBI right up to VJ-day. The Indian AF still had eight squadrons operational as front-line fighter-bombers in 1945. And then there was specialist units like 6sq RAF, who were still operating anti-tank Hurricane IVs in the Middle East in 1946! They spent 1994 and 1945 flying Hurricanes on anti-shipping and ground-attacks over the Italian coast, Dalmation Isles, Yugoslavia, Corsica, and Greece, right up to VE-Day. Even the late model P-40M/N were replaced as fighter-bombers by the USAAF with P-47s in China and the Pacific by early 1945.

RAF Fighter Command jealously kept all the Typhoons in the UK because they were so in demand for low-level interception and later ground-attack. They resisted sending Spitfires to the Med until early 1942, only sending Spitfire Vs when they finally had the promise of Spitfire IXs for home-based squadrons. Even then, there were still 60 RAF squadrons in the UK flying Spitfires when the first ones were sent to Malta! As the 1943 tests with 451Sq showed, the Typhoon was more than capable of operating in the theatre. Did you stop to think that there were still Typhoon units fighting in Germany in 1945 - how many P-40F units were there flying over the Rhine in 1945? Yup, a big, fat zero!

I assume the incident you speak of in which the p40s shot down about 60 Ju52s is the Palm Sunday Massacre. Acording to Franz Stigler, the commanding German Officer, there were only two Schwarms for a total of 8 Bf 109s present and he and I believe at least one other 109 were shot down by the p40s. Several more by the Spitfires.

 

[fubar57]

South African Air Force SAAF Marauders, Martin B-26 Marauder.

 

[Stig1207]

Okay, so you're talking about claims. Is that the total of confirmed, probables and damaged? IIRC during the BoB the Luftwaffe claimed to have shot down about 2000+ Spitfires and 1200+ Hurricanes, an over claim ratio of almost 4 to 1. You've got to wonder what these guys were on. Ah. I remember, crystal meths, pervitin.

Indeed, that is the claims; but your 'victories' that you are comparing to the production figures for the Typhoon, P-40, P-47, etc. are also claims or credited victories, not actual enemy losses.

 

[Schweik]

As with the DAF in the Desert, the P-40s got the escort job because they had much better range than the Hurricane or the Spitfire. The Spitfires originally sent to the Desert were kept back for interception and air-superiority over the battlefield. The P-40s over Sardinia were running diversionary raids whilst the Spitfires from Malta were doing the real air fighting over Sicily. See Operation Mincemeat for the Allied strategy. By the time the Allies landed on Sardinia in September 1943 the Nazis had mainly fled. I have five ME109s from III/JG77 lost during the whole invasion, but USAAF P-40 units made crazy claims, like 21 ME109s in a single combat (325th Fighter Group, 30th July 1943)! And, IIRC, the P-38s did most of the sweeps over Sardinia that cleared the Regia Aeronautica and Luftwaffe defenders before the P-40s even mounted their first escort. Sorry, not going to be convinced by over-claiming when it doesn't match reported Axis losses.

Well, I'm sorry too but the claims over Sardinia do actually match Axis losses pretty well, I've posted a bunch of them in this thread, I can go back and find them for you. Mediterranean Air War Volume IV is your source. The P-40s were of course also fighting every day over Sicily, Salerno, Anzio etc. They were credited with "capturing" Pantelleria.

JG27 never recovered from the loss of their three best pilots in late 1942; Steinhausen to a Hurricane of 127Sq RAF, Stahlschmidt to Spitfire of 601Sq RAF, and Marseille to mechanical failure. No Warhawks involved there.

Well no Warhawks there I agree since that is what the Americans called them (or not too many, there were some operational from mid 42), but RAF and Commonwealth pilots like James "Stocky" Edwards, Billy Drake, Nicky Barr and Clive Caldwell took out several leaders and experten from JG 27 in Kittyhawks.

Caldwell alone got 3 experten while flying a P-40 - he shot down Wolfgang Lippert (30 victory claims, commander of II./JG 27) on 23 November 1941, (Lippert subsequently died from wounds received while bailing out), he killed Erbo von Kageneck (69 victory "experten" of III./JG 27) on Dec 24 1941. He also shot down Stahlschmidt in February 1942 though he survived to die later.

James Edwards shot down at least two experten from JG 27 while flying P-40s, he shot down and killed Gunter Steinhausen (40 victrory claims, JG 27) on September 6 1942, and he also killed Otto Schulz (4.JG 27, 51 victory claims), who he blew out of the sky on June 17, 1942 while Schultz was strafing a Hurricane he had just shot down and his two wingmen circled above to protect him. The Hurricane pilot survived and saw the whole thing, though researchers didn't piece together what had happened until the 1970's. Edwards tended to underclaim and had only claimed this as a 'probable'.

By the time the Yank P-40s got involved, JG27 was hollowed out by two years of combat against the Commonwealth squadrons. It was so bad that the majority of JG27 was

Well gee, that was over before you knew it huh? How come these excuses never work in reverse when the 'experten' were racking up victories against poorly trained pilots with barely any training on their aircraft? And so what was wrong with JG 77? Are we supposed to decide that the whole Luftwaffe had already blown it's wad by the middle of 1942?

Another notable indication of how the P-40F wasn't needed after the arrival of the Spitfire V in 1942 was that RAF units like 112Sq swapped their Kittyhawk IIs for Kittyhawk IIIs as the IIIs had better low altitude performance for ground-attacks.

Actually, one of the two RAF squadrons which had the Kittyhawk II's and went to III's switched back specifically because of the increase in casualties. However there were two types of Kittyhawk III- the low altitude, but very powerful down low P-40K, and the higher altitude rated P-40M. RAF records are rarely clear as to which is which though they had more of the M. A lot of pilots like the K because it had ~1550 hp down low at WEP (not overboosting mind you, just regular WEP).

The Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica units in Italy themselves rated the Spitfire VIII and IX as their deadliest opponents.

I think the Spit IX and VIII were indeed the deadliest opponents faced by the Luftwaffe, however I can indeed find you some noting they didn't like to tangle with P-40s. I'll post tomorrow as it's late now (along with some other details). All this was covered in this thread already which I encourage you to read.

The RAF was still using plenty of Hurricanes in the CBI right up to VJ-day.

Yes but interestingly the RAF took Hurricanes out of front line service in the Med - even as fighter bombers- in early 1943, more than a year and a half before they started phasing out P-40s which they (the RAF) were still using in Italy in 1945.

They spent 1994 and 1945 flying Hurricanes on anti-shipping and ground-attacks over the Italian coast, Dalmation Isles, Yugoslavia, Corsica, and Greece, right up to VE-Day. Even the late model P-40M/N were replaced as fighter-bombers by the USAAF with P-47s in China and the Pacific by early 1945.

That goes against my sources - do you have data on Hurricane units based in Italy?

RAF Fighter Command jealously kept all the Typhoons in the UK because they were so in demand for low-level interception and later ground-attack.

This seems unlikely, and given the high rate of errors in the rest of the post, I wouldn't take your word for it. One of the claims has been that the reason Typhoons scored so many fewer victories than the P-40F (just the F mind you) is because they didn't fly that many missions until D-Day. So which is it?

 

[fubar57]

Hawker Hurricane Mk.IV of 6 Sqn. being serviced in Foggia Italy, July '44

 

[Schweik]

Ok I stand corrected, that's news to me. Do you have the unit?

 

[fubar57]

6 Sqn bases in Italy...

 

[Schweik]

Some P-40 vs. Bf 109 stuff, from the Med (from posts upthread, but I know people aren't going to go back and hunt through all that so here is a refresher)

Early Tomahawk vs. Bf 109 engagement Dec 1941

(MAW Volume 1) page 329

"On November 22, 1941 there was a significant engagement in which the Tomahawk was put to a hard test by the Bf 109F. At 1540 nine Tomahawks of No. 112 Squadron RAF were joined by thirteen Tomahawks of No. 3 Squadron RAAF for an offensive sweep over the Tobruk-El Adem area[7]. At roughly 1600 hours they were intercepted near Bir Hacheim by 20 Bf 109Fs attacking from 3,000 feet above [8]. During the subsequent hour long engagement, which took place near two German airfields, JG 27 fighters landed and refueled to rejoin the fight. In the melee DAF fighters claimed three Bf 109s shot down and four "probables", while JG 27 claimed 11 P-40s [9]. The actual losses were 6 Bf 109F-4s and 7 Tomahawk IIbs shot down and 1 badly damaged (the aircraft of future RAAF Ace Bobby Gibbes) [10]. In the aftermath of the bloody fight both sides were shaken. The Germans believed they had come out ahead but felt the losses were unacceptable , and therefore made the decision not to dogfight the Tomahawk with the Bf 109F in the future [11], and instead to rely on 'boom and zoom' tactics[12], which while effective, imposed certain Tactical limitations. "

Detailed anecdote of Merlin / P-40F engagement with Bf 1o9s in 9 October 1942 here

Comparing actual losses in both sides from July 1942 - March 1943 per Christopher Shores Mediterranean Air War. These are from Volumes II and III

July 8 1942 (112 RAF and 3 RAAF Kittyhawk Is vs. LW Bf 109Fs) 4 Bf 109F and 1 Ju 87 lost / 0 P-40s lost.
Oct 13 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs escorting SAAF Kittyhawk Is vs. LW Bf 109Fs) 3 Bf 109's / 1 P-40 lost.
Oct 27 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs escorting RAF Hurricanes vs Lw Bf 109Fs) 3 Bf 109's lost / 0 P-40s lost.*
Dec 8 1942 (USAAF 57 FG P-40Fs and Ks vs JG 77 Bf 109F and G) 4 Bf 109s lost / 1 P-40 lost
Dec 30 1942 (3 RAAF Kittyhawk III vs. JG 77 Bf 109F and G) 4 Bf 109s lost / 0 P-40s lost
23 March 1943 (USAAF 79 FG vs. JG 77 & JG 51) 2 Bf 109s lost to P-40's / 0 P40s lost
24 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 2 Bf 109s lost (+4 lost for 'unknown reasons')/ 1 P-40 lost
29 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (4 destroyed +2 crash-landed) and 3 He 111's and 1 Ju 88 / 2 P-40's lost (1 to AA)
31 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (3 destroyed +3 crash-landed) and Ju 87 lost to P-40 / 1 P-40 lost**

*In an 8 day period in Oct 1942 where DAF P-40s (with some USAAF support) roughly 'broke even' against the LW, Shooting down 29 Bf 109's and 10 MC 202's for 31 P-40s & 3 Spits
** In the four USAAF vs. Luftwaffe clashes listed above between 23-31 March 1943 16 Bf 109s were lost (11 destroyed and 5 crash landed) +5 bombers / vs. 3 P-40s.

Combat with losses from both sides from May, June and July 1943 (operations against Sicily, Sardinia and Italy)

May 27 1943 (US 325th FG vs. Italian 51 and 42 Stormo) 3 x MC 202 lost / 0 P-40s lost
May 28 1943 (US 325th FG and 14th FG [P-38] vs JG 27 and Italian 41 and 150 Stormo) 3 x Bf 109G-4 and G-6 lost**, 1 x Bf 109G (Italian) lost / 1 P-40 and 1 P-38 lost
June 6 1943 (US 325th FG and 52FG [Spit V] vs JG 27 and JG 53) 3 x Bf 109 shot down*** / 0 P-40 shot down
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) 6 x Bf 109G Shot down***** / 1 P-40 shot down

Notice in particular July 8, 22, 26 and 30. These were days when P-40 units were fighting German and Italian fighters in areas where no other Allied fighters were operational.

Also on June 10, though Spitfires were also involved, they claimed 14, while US P-40F/L units claimed 21. Actual losses were 23 Axis fighters. Even if we assume that all of the Spitfire claims were accurate, that still leaves 9 shot down by the P-40s. If we assume roughly the same rate of overclaiming (65% of claims were real) the ratio was probably more like 9 by the Spits and 13 by the P-40s.

* it's unclear to me at this time if this includes Tomahawk claims or not.
** on this day P-40 pilots made claims for 6 Bf 109s, P-38 pilots claimed 2
*** one Bf 109 claimed by Spitfire pilots, 3 claimed by P-40s. One additional Bf 109 was reported shot down by defensive gunners on B-17s
**** 13 claims by Spitfire pilots 21 claims by P-40 pilots
***** There was also one claim by a Spitfire pilot, Shores says the loss of one 8./JG 77 plane may have been by the Spitfire or by 325 FG

 

[Schweik]

6 Sqn bases in Italy...

View attachment 542785​

I have to admit I'm baffled, TO&E shows the Hurricane units all well away from the front in 43, maybe they moved them back in later..?

The Wiki for 6 Squadron RAF says they were using Hurricane IID, that is the tank buster ones, through Sept 1943. Then it says they were moved to Italy in Spring of 1944 with Hurricane IV's armed with rockets. Damn, news to me!

Reading my book "Hawker Hurricane, the Multirole fighter" I found this passage:


"Hurricanes of 127, 213 and 274 Squadrons operated from bases in Cyrenaica, Egypt and Cyprus in unsuccessful operations against German forces in the Dodecanese Islands in September and November of 1943, some offensive sweeps were flown against German-occupied airfields in Crete.

Some Hurricane units were available for operations in the Italian campaign, - particularly 6 Squadron, which had fully recovered from the fighting in North Africa and arrived at Grottaglie in February 144 equipped ith Hurricane Mk IVs. The Hurricanees were normally armed with 40mm cannons, which were later discarded, and four 3 inche rocket projectiles (RP) - the new role being to attack Axis shipping and ports on both coasts of the Adriatic."

Seems like maybe 6 Sqn was something of a special case possibly. I admit I wasn't aware of it though.

 

[Greyman]

Maybe you can clarify a question for me. I read somewhere that the Spits were being used with the cropped impellers and the shortened wings specifically in the Med but haven't been able to confirm that, is that true or was that done just up in the Channel?

The main impetus for the cropped, +18 boost Spitfire Vs was for use in North Africa, where there was a pressing need to combat low-level Fw 190s. They wanted Spitfire IXs but apparently that wasn't happening -- so they asked for beefed up Mk.Vs.

 

[Kevin J]

What were the losses?

635 Tomahawks were sent to the Middle East. The RAF, SAAF and RAAF each operated 2 squadrons. Of the six, 3 RAAF and 112 RAF scored 77 victories between them. At a guess, 200+.

 

[Mad Dog]

Are we supposed to decide that the whole Luftwaffe had already blown it's wad by the middle of 1942?

Yes. I'm not kidding, by 1942 the Luftwaffe was already having problems with shortened pilot training. The slow burn of losses had started gradually killing the Luftwaffe because it had never been structured for a long war. There were already shortages of fuel for training, and the aircraft for advanced fighter training were pre-War versions of the ME109 at best, meaning new fighter pilots often reached their frontline units with zero hours on the latest models. On the Channel Front, where such inexperience was considered suicidal, units like JG26 introduced a training staffel to try and bring the new recruits up to speed. They started doing so in 1941. At no time was a similar approach used by JG27 or any other unit in the Med, as there simply wasn't the time, aircraft, fuel or experienced pilots to spare for instruction in that theatre, and certainly not the drive to do so from the Kommodores. Much-lauded aces like Marseille didn't bother teaching their newbies, they simply flew with the same wingmen and let the newbies follow behind.
By July 1942 even Goering couldn't duck the training issue. He did fudge a response by trying to absorb the C schulen into the advanced Ergaenzungseinheiten, but that just shifted the chokepoint. Even in 1942, far too much of the trainee's flying hours had to be done in gliders simply because the training schools were over-stretched and fuel-starved. The real impact was hidden for a while by the poor quality of opposition faced in the Desert and in Russia. When that opposition got better fighters and better operational training, the Luftwaffe's decline was rapid and irreversible.

 

[Mad Dog]

635 Tomahawks were sent to the Middle East. The RAF, SAAF and RAAF each operated 2 squadrons. Of the six, 3 RAAF and 112 RAF scored 77 victories between them. At a guess, 200+.

Aces like Neville Duke said the Tomahawk wasn't a patch on the Spitfire, but he actually preferred the Tomahawk to the Kittyhawk.

 

[wuzak]

This seems unlikely, and given the high rate of errors in the rest of the post, I wouldn't take your word for it. One of the claims has been that the reason Typhoons scored so many fewer victories than the P-40F (just the F mind you) is because they didn't fly that many missions until D-Day. So which is it?

You do know that it is possible for the RAF to keep aircraft in Britain for defence without there being many encounters? That the Home Front was more important to the British government than the Africa campaign?

The Spitfire is another example. Often repeated here is that the Spitfire wasn't suitable for overseas deployment until the Mk.V. The reality is that they didn't have enough of them in Britain to spare, so even when the V became available it wasn't sent overseas for about a year.

I don't know how many missions were flown, but a mission does not mean an encounter with an enemy aircraft, let alone a shoot down.

 

[Mad Dog]

OK, to put the argument to rest, let's consider how the majority of P-40s were shot down in the Desert. The Luftwaffe tactics were to enter the combat zone at an altitude above the P-40s, then attack with boom-and-zoom tactics, relying on the heavy punch of the cannon to get a kill on the first pass. Yeah, yeah, I know, Marseille, bla bla bla, but he was an (over-claiming) exception.
Now, consider the P-40F and the Typhoon Ib. The Typhoon can climb quicker and is faster at all heights, and it's no slouch in the dive, so it is highly likely the Typhoon pilot is going to use the same tactics. And the Typhoon is famous for being a stable gun platform in a dive. Should the Typhoon pilot get a shot on target, his four Hispano cannon are going to shred the P-40F. If he misses, he can out-zoom the P-40F and climb to position for another attack, or just fly off home. The Typhoon pilot will have the advantage of being able to dictate the battle, and unlike the ME019 pilot, he has the fuel load to stick around just as long as the P-40F. One-on-one may be an unrealistic scenario but I'd put my money on the Typhoon.

 

[Mad Dog]

…...They barely won El Alamein (with USAAF help) and that was a very close run thing....

Er, no. Montgomery was allowed to build up a massive advantage in men, machines and supplies. Rommel's defeat was assured, it was simply a matter of how big a defeat it was going to be. Monty chose to deliberately turn the Second Battle of Alamein into a WW1-style battle of attrition, because he knew he could afford to and Rommel couldn't. The Axis had lost every advantage they had held in previous campaigns - the Allies had more soldiers, more guns, more tanks and more planes. And it was also now all of at least equal if not better quality than the Axis equipment. Not only was Rommel forced to fight a stationary battle due to lack of fuel, but he had also lost the secret that had won him so many previous campaigns - MI6 had finally convinced the Americans to change their communications codes and plugged the monumental security hole of Colonel Bonner Fellers, the US military attache who gifted Rommel every move Auchinleck ever made. So, no, the Brits actually didn't need the USAAF help all that much. Indeed, supplying Sherman tanks was by far the most useful US contribution at Alamein.

 

[Shortround6]

I'm pretty certain after a lot of reading on the subject that they were sent to the Med, and hoarded by the Americans (with only 2 British / Commonwealth squadrons getting a couple of hundred of them) because they had the better altitude performance and therefore a better chance against the Bf 109. The F and L had a performance ceiling of about 20'000 ft or just under that. Of the Allison engined P-40s still in use at the time or coming online, the P-40E and K both had a critical altitude somewhere below 14,000 ft, some sources say 12,000 ft. The M, as you know because we've discussed it on here, had a critical altitude closer to 16,000 like the original Tomahawk, and the stripped down (early) version of the N which was used by the RAF in Theater, mostly in Italy, was around 17,000 or slightly better. All bad, basically, but the Merlin powered ones could fight quite a bit higher, maybe as much as 8,000 ft higher than most of the ones in use in the Theater when the Americans arrived.

You have 2 (or 3) critical altitudes, the engine maker gives a critical altitude of NO ram. Pilots manuals sometimes use that and sometimes a an altitude a bit higher (if you are doing even 160mph there is some ram) while full speed in level flight is often several thousand ft above that. But that starts to depend on the intake duct of a particular airplane. The P-40E & K might be able to make full military power in level flight at around 14,000ft, it depends on the individual airplane and engine. But when climbing that full military power will have stated to fall off at around 11,500ft (rated altitude of the engine in the E) and 12,000ft or so. The rated altitude of the engines in the P-40N Was 15,500ft. so in full speed level flight it would hold up to 17,000ft or better. However the V-1650-1 Merlin was rated 18,500ft so it would hold to about 20,000ft or a bit higher.
This is pretty much what you said. However "The M, as you know because we've discussed it on here, had a critical altitude closer to 16,000 like the original Tomahawk" the original Tomahawk had two ratings, (???) 1040hp at 14,300ft or 1090hp at 13,200ft. there was no difference in the engine, that is just what happened when measured at the two different altitudes (no RAM). Why some charts/documents use one rating and other charts/documents use the other I have no idea. Power levels at altitude are based on a 59 degree F (15 degree C) day but the critical altitude is the altitude at which the throttle is fully opened and is not going to change much due to a change in temperature. (the air has the same pressure, there is just less of it per cubic ft).
The numbers you gave are certainly close enough to explain why some planes worked/flew the way they did compared to others, Just be aware that when climbing or in a hard maneuvering fight when airspeed is low the critical height is often several thousand feet below the level full speed altitude.

Sides on what? On P-40F vs. Typhoon or something else?

I am not on either side of the Merlin P-40s to North Africa supply chain question as it depends on what exactly was meant and everything I have seen/read is secondary source or worse so the original thinking of the people who came up with the policy (if it even existed) is impossible to determine. If somebody has an official, memo/letter/directive great.

That's interesting about the South Africans, what airplane is that? Venturas? Vickers Warwick?

They were Venturas.
A P&W R-2800 B series engine was, from the rear of the power section/front of the supercharger, pretty much the same regardless of the type of supercharger used. Single speed single stage, two speed single stage, two stage or single stage with turbo (which was mounted separately) the supercharger section is what varied so a stock of parts for the power section (and reduction gear section) could cover most engine types until the "C" series showed up in late 1944 and everything was different.