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

[Mad Dog]

Their job was to protect the German troops from the Allied aircraft, specifically it was to shoot down bombers and fighter-bombers, and more rarely to escort Stukas and other Tactical bombers when the latter were attacking front-line Allied positions (which the Luftwaffe pilots said they hated doing). This required them to be in range of the front lines. Not to be within range of the Allied airbases which they rarely were. Again, this isn't new and I did not come up with this idea, the issue about the Spitfire's range is well known and has been for a long time. The role of the P-40's as escorts is also pretty well established. I'll quote a passage from a German ace on this subject later.



The Bf 109s could always attack from above - quite often they attacked Spitfire V's from above as well. What the DAF pilots needed to change was their Tactics in response to being bounced. The Germans could always use their attack from up high, but if they were limited to only attacking that way, it made it hard to get at the bombers and as the Allies finally adopted effective defensive tactics such as what I've already described upthread (both recently upthread and quite a way back many pages...) the Luftwaffe were less likely to get fighter kills that way either.

The P-40F/L much higher performance ceiling meant that it took longer for Bf 109s to get above them and they couldn't safely fight them (without taking casualties) from there on down to Sea Level. For some reason, prior to mid 1942, RAF were often flying missions including fighter sweeps as low as 6,000 -7,000 feet. Bobby Gibbes has also commented on this as did many of the other DAF and Luftwaffe Aces. When the Merlin engined units came into the Theater, both US and British / Commonwealth, they were able to take a much heavier toll on the German fighters. In most cases without any top cover.



We have also discussed this, I certainly haven't avoided the topic, it's just already been hashed out (and then some). You'll have to forgive me if you come in on page 70 of a long running Thread and start bringing up things that were already debunked several times, and I don't spend a ton of effort digging up all the facts that had previously been posted.

Every WW2 combat aircraft had it's strengths and weaknesses. Some were Strategically significant, some Operational or Tactical in implications. Certain aircraft were generalists within a certain subset of conditions, others were suitable for more niche roles. The Spitfire for example was basically an interceptor. The P-51B on out was ideal as an escort fighter. And so on.

In my opinion the Typhoon had much more of a niche role - being very fast at low level like the P-51A, it was better at attacking or performing recon against an "integrated air defense network" - as in static targets, heavy AA integrated with a communications network, and eventually, radar. The Spitfire was already ideal (or the best available) for defense of the Home Islands which is why the newer types in particular (when they became available) were so jealously hoarded there.

The P-40 was a generalist, within certain limits. It was no good at high altitude and wasn't ideal as an interceptor, but remained suitable for a wide variety of conditions in many different Theaters from it's first introduction to combat through the end of the war. It shot down a lot of enemy aircraft during that time, and blew up a lot of enemy ground troops, tanks, bridges, railcars and shipping. It was used in the Med, in the Pacific from Alaska to Australia, in the CBI, and in Russia mostly as a fighter but also as a fighter bomber. In the Med, the conditions changed from the early days with the Tomahawk in 1941 to the introduction of the Merlin engined variants in mid to late 1942. But generally speaking it was used as an air superiority fighter through that entire period.

In Australia, even though it really wasn't good for the job, it had a better record as an interceptor than the Spit V did, for whatever combination of reasons.



Actually, in most cases they were not. The battle-lines fluctuated a lot during the war so sometimes Luftwaffe and Regia Aeronautica bases were close enough for Spitfires to join strike missions, but most often they were too far away.



Try reading through the thread before you make a misguided attempt to pwn it.



The fact that you think the outcomes of air combat would be obvious 76 years ago seems a bit dubious to me...

 

[Mad Dog]

OK, you started the thread "Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?", when it is obvious from your posts that you had already decided that you thought the P-40F was better and were completely unwilling to consider the copious evidence to the contrary. Indeed, you treat any criticism of the P-40F's record as some form of nationalist slight. The Typhoon wasn't just a bombtruck nor just used for defending against low-level Jabos. RAF pilots like Laurence "Pinky" Stark became aces flying sweeps over occupied France in the Typhoon in 1943 and 1944. I suspect you chose the Typhoon for your comparison because you realise how badly the P-40 stacked up against just about every other Allied fighter of the day. You failed. The Hawker Typhoon was the better fighter and it's continued use in Europe, right up until VE-day, long after the P-40 had been banished to less dangerous theatres, simply underlines the point.

 

[Schweik]

OK, you started the thread "Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?", when it is obvious from your posts that you had already decided that you thought the P-40F was better and were completely unwilling to consider the copious evidence to the contrary.

To the contrary, I really had no idea. Again, if you read the thread you'll know how it started - from another thread when in a debate about the merits of low-level fighters, I mentioned the Typhoon. Someone said the Typhoon was way out of the league of the P-40, and I said Ok let's hash that one out. I did not, at the time, know that the air-to-air victory claim totals of the Typhoon were less than 1/2 of the claims for just that one (Merlin Engined) subtype of the P-40. I did not know that roughly the same number of both aircraft had been produced during the war. I didn't know about the poor roll and turn performance of the Typhoon. I didn't know the full extent of the teething problems faced by the Typhoon or what numerous pilots who flew it had to say about it's suitability as a fighter. This all emerged during the course of the thread.

Indeed, you treat any criticism of the P-40F's record as some form of nationalist slight.

I certainly have not done so. The Merlin engine, need I remind you, is a British invention. Criticizing one British airplane is not the same as criticizing British planes in general, nor is correcting the record of one American plane the same as praising them all. I pointed out several times in this and other threads that the Spitfire was the best Allied fighter and the Mosquito the best allied bomber, in my opinion. I am conversely not a fan of numerous US aircraft like the TBF. Accusations of national bias are totally unfounded.

The Typhoon wasn't just a bombtruck nor just used for defending against low-level Jabos. RAF pilots like Laurence "Pinky" Stark became aces flying sweeps over occupied France in the Typhoon in 1943 and 1944.

Ok, maybe we should compare the number of Aces in each type. How many Typhoon aces were there? How many Bf 109s did Typhoon pilots claim destroyed?

I suspect you chose the Typhoon for your comparison because you realise how badly the P-40 stacked up against just about every other Allied fighter of the day.

Nope, the thread started from an argument in another one, as I described above.

You failed. The Hawker Typhoon was the better fighter and it's continued use in Europe, right up until VE-day, long after the P-40 had been banished to less dangerous theatres, simply underlines the point.

I honestly can't claim to know either way which was the better fighter, as I'm not a pilot and wasn't in the war. It is purely an exercise in speculation and an opportunity for members of the forum to dig up interesting facts pro- and con- in the argument. Some people seem to have been triggered by the very concept of making this comparison, which I acknowledge is in an outlier position from conventional narratives about the Air War, but we have learned over time many of those narratives were wrong. I think regardless of which side you took in the thread, quite a bit of data has emerged to make the case seem a bit closer than I personally expected.

 

[pbehn]

Ok, maybe we should compare the number of Aces in each type. How many Typhoon aces were there? How many Bf 109s did Typhoon pilots claim destroyed?
.

No, actually you cant. Setting off on a mission in a P-40 across the channel in 1943 to 44 was a great way to end your involvement in the conflict.

 

[Schweik]

No, actually you cant. Setting off on a mission in a P-40 across the channel in 1943 to 44 was a great way to end your involvement in the conflict.

In my opinion, setting out in a Typhoon on a fighter sweep over Pantelleria in the same period would be similarly dicey, though at least you will die in a pretty place.

I don't see what that has to do with comparing the number of aces who flew either type. This new guy is claiming that the Typhoon was the mount of many aces, and not just against Jabo raids. So I'm just asking him to put his cards on the table.

S

 

[michael rauls]

OK, you started the thread "Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon?", when it is obvious from your posts that you had already decided that you thought the P-40F was better and were completely unwilling to consider the copious evidence to the contrary. Indeed, you treat any criticism of the P-40F's record as some form of nationalist slight. The Typhoon wasn't just a bombtruck nor just used for defending against low-level Jabos. RAF pilots like Laurence "Pinky" Stark became aces flying sweeps over occupied France in the Typhoon in 1943 and 1944. I suspect you chose the Typhoon for your comparison because you realise how badly the P-40 stacked up against just about every other Allied fighter of the day. You failed. The Hawker Typhoon was the better fighter and it's continued use in Europe, right up until VE-day, long after the P-40 had been banished to less dangerous theatres, simply underlines the point.

There were at least 3 units still flying the p40 in Europe on VE day. The 450th RAAF, and I believe the 250th, and 145th?although id have to double check the nomenclature on the 2nd two to be sure.
There was also a Russian front line unit still using them until the end at least according to one Russian officer although ive never been able to find out anything else about this unit anywhere else so take that one for what it's worth but there were at least 3 for sure and quite possibly more units still using the Warhawk on VE day in Europe.It had not bean banished to less dangerous theaters.
While imho I would agree with you that the Typhoon is the better plane as one would expect from a latter design I think the ultimate test of how an aircraft stacked up against other aircraft allied or otherwise is efficacy. If a design is successful as the p40 inarguably was then by definition it does not" stack up poorly against other designs". At least if performance is to be any measure..........and I can't think of a better one.

 

[Schweik]

That has been part of the gist of the thread and the point I thought it might make (though again honestly, I didn't know how it would turn out). There are many ways to measure the merits of a wartime aircraft and just about all of them come up in various threads on this site. The most popular are related to performance: top speed, critical altitude and operational ceiling, rate of climb and dive, power to weight ratio and so on. Turbo's and two stage superchargers. Then armament. Then, range. Then maneuverability - rate of climb, dive, roll rate, turn rates (instantaneous and sustained).

Then there are the less easily quantifiable traits like handling and maintenance. Things like how often did the guns jam or how often did the engines break down. How often did they stall or go into spins and how easily could the pilot recover when they did. How often they suffered from serious design flaws and how long did it take to fix those.

Then there are things like pilot testimony, on both sides -pilots who flew them, Allies who fought alongside them and below them on the ground, and enemy pilots who fought against them.

Finally there are the quantifiable effects: ground targets destroyed, ships destroyed, air to air victories claimed, losses per sortie, number of aces, and, by consulting the records of both sides, verifiable victories in air to air combat.

Sometimes an aircraft that looks good by one set of criteria doesn't look as good by another. And sometimes an aircraft that did well or poorly in one well known Theater did the opposite in another place maybe not as well known.

The P-40 was an American plane, and the most famous unit was the Amercian Volunteer group in Burma. But it actually had it's most telling effects of the war in the hands of British, Australian, New Zealander, Canadian and South African Pilots... and by Russian pilots. American pilots also played an important role in some places but if we agree the Germans were the greater threat to the Allied cause, it was the British / Commonwealth and Soviet aces who flew the aircraft in the critical years of 1941 and 1942 who had the most effect on the outcome of the war. It was one of the aircraft critical to stabilizing the air war and helping to tilt the balance back into the Allied favor on many fronts.

When the USAAF arrived in force in the Med in 1942, they embedded with the DAF and learned their hard won lessons on how to use the aircraft against the German and Italian pilots they faced. The American pilots were lucky because they had a higher performing version of the plane, with a British designed engine that gave them better odds against their Axis foes. They also came in using tactics which had become standard Allied procedure, but which had sadly lagged in the MTO.

This gave them a little bit of an edge in terms of outcomes, not because of Spitfires or P-38s flying top cover because they usually weren't, not because the Germans were out of good pilots because that wasn't true either.

 

[michael rauls]

To the contrary, I really had no idea. Again, if you read the thread you'll know how it started - from another thread when in a debate about the merits of low-level fighters, I mentioned the Typhoon. Someone said the Typhoon was way out of the league of the P-40, and I said Ok let's hash that one out. I did not, at the time, know that the air-to-air victory claim totals of the Typhoon were less than 1/2 of the claims for just that one (Merlin Engined) subtype of the P-40. I did not know that roughly the same number of both aircraft had been produced during the war. I didn't know about the poor roll and turn performance of the Typhoon. I didn't know the full extent of the teething problems faced by the Typhoon or what numerous pilots who flew it had to say about it's suitability as a fighter. This all emerged during the course of the thread.



I certainly have not done so. The Merlin engine, need I remind you, is a British invention. Criticizing one British airplane is not the same as criticizing British planes in general, nor is correcting the record of one American plane the same as praising them all. I pointed out several times in this and other threads that the Spitfire was the best Allied fighter and the Mosquito the best allied bomber, in my opinion. I am conversely not a fan of numerous US aircraft like the TBF. Accusations of national bias are totally unfounded.



Ok, maybe we should compare the number of Aces in each type. How many Typhoon aces were there? How many Bf 109s did Typhoon pilots claim destroyed?



Nope, the thread started from an argument in another one, as I described above.



I honestly can't claim to know either way which was the better fighter, as I'm not a pilot and wasn't in the war. It is purely an exercise in speculation and an opportunity for members of the forum to dig up interesting facts pro- and con- in the argument. Some people seem to have been triggered by the very concept of making this comparison, which I acknowledge is in an outlier position from conventional narratives about the Air War, but we have learned over time many of those narratives were wrong. I think regardless of which side you took in the thread, quite a bit of data has emerged to make the case seem a bit closer than I personally expected.

I would agree that, although I still feel the Typhoon to be the better plane of the two,
it certainly seems like a much closer contest to me now than i would have thought before reading the new information presented in this thread. Lot's of good stuff here about both planes I didn't know.

 

[pbehn]

I don't see what that has to do with comparing the number of aces who flew either type.

S

If you compare aces then a Sopwith Camel will always outclass an F-22.

 

[Schweik]

If you compare aces then a Sopwith Camel will always outclass an F-22.

Difference being there wasn't a 100 year time gap between when the Typhoon was used and when the P-40 was used In fact not even a one year difference.

This does give me a little more insight into how badass you think the Typhoon is though...

 

[michael rauls]

That has been part of the gist of the thread and the point I thought it might make (though again honestly, I didn't know how it would turn out). There are many ways to measure the merits of a wartime aircraft and just about all of them come up in various threads on this site. The most popular are related to performance: top speed, critical altitude and operational ceiling, rate of climb and dive, power to weight ratio and so on. Turbo's and two stage superchargers. Then armament. Then, range. Then maneuverability - rate of climb, dive, roll rate, turn rates (instantaneous and sustained).

Then there are the less easily quantifiable traits like handling and maintenance. Things like how often did the guns jam or how often did the engines break down. How often did they stall or go into spins and how easily could the pilot recover when they did. How often they suffered from serious design flaws and how long did it take to fix those.

Then there are things like pilot testimony, on both sides -pilots who flew them, Allies who fought alongside them and below them on the ground, and enemy pilots who fought against them.

Finally there are the quantifiable effects: ground targets destroyed, ships destroyed, air to air victories claimed, losses per sortie, number of aces, and, by consulting the records of both sides, verifiable victories in air to air combat.

Sometimes an aircraft that looks good by one set of criteria doesn't look as good by another. And sometimes an aircraft that did well or poorly in one well known Theater did the opposite in another place maybe not as well known.

The P-40 was an American plane, and the most famous unit was the Amercian Volunteer group in Burma. But it actually had it's most telling effects of the war in the hands of British, Australian, New Zealander, Canadian and South African Pilots... and by Russian pilots. American pilots also played an important role in some places but if we agree the Germans were the greater threat to the Allied cause, it was the British / Commonwealth and Soviet aces who flew the aircraft in the critical years of 1941 and 1942 who had the most effect on the outcome of the war. It was one of the aircraft critical to stabilizing the air war and helping to tilt the balance back into the Allied favor on many fronts.

When the USAAF arrived in force in the Med in 1942, they embedded with the DAF and learned their hard won lessons on how to use the aircraft against the German and Italian pilots they faced. The American pilots were lucky because they had a higher performing version of the plane, with a British designed engine that gave them better odds against their Axis foes. They also came in using tactics which had become standard Allied procedure, but which had sadly lagged in the MTO.

This gave them a little bit of an edge in terms of outcomes, not because of Spitfires or P-38s flying top cover because they usually weren't, not because the Germans were out of good pilots because that wasn't true either.

Very interesting stuff. For my money dependability, handling characteristics, and stall/ spin qualities are the too often overlooked qualities that made a huge difference in how effective a design was.

 

[pbehn]

Difference being there wasn't a 100 year time gap between when the Typhoon was used and when the P-40 was used In fact not even a one year difference.

This does give me a little more insight into how badass you think the Typhoon is though...

There is no insight required, in my view of WW2 aircraft the Typhoon comes very low on the "impressed" scale. It did have 4 cannon and was fast and could match the FW190 in most areas though. It just needed a new engine, fuselage, wings and cockpit.

 

[Mad Dog]

There is no insight required, in my view of WW2 aircraft the Typhoon comes very low on the "impressed" scale. It did have 4 cannon and was fast and could match the FW190 in most areas though. It just needed a new engine, fuselage, wings and cockpit.

Whereas the P-40F just needed replacing with a P-47 to be successful.

 

[Mad Dog]

There were at least 3 units still flying the p40 in Europe on VE day.....

By "in Europe" I'm guessing you mean bombing in Italy against negligible aerial opposition. That's a far different proposition to the Typhoons flying over Germany in the last months of the War, when they could and did still meet all manner of Luftwaffe fighters, even jets.

 

[michael rauls]

Whereas the P-40F just needed replacing with a P-47 to be successful.

The p40 was a mid 30s design( a p36 with a liquid cooled engine slapped on it) that was still in front line service in several theaters, including Europe till wars end.
That in itself is a stunning achievement but in addition it played pivotal roles in several theaters, had a far positive kill/ loss ratio( I've read alot of different figures here but all of them far in the positive, and according to one of the other posters here whom i have no reason to doubt it had the 3rd highest claims to planes produced ratio, behind only the p51 and I believe F6f.
I am honestly curious, not to be argumentative but honestly curious by what metric do you hold the Warhawk to be a failure? I am honestly willing to re consider my impression of it but so far im not seeing a reason to.

 

[Mad Dog]

I did not, at the time, know that the air-to-air victory claim totals of the Typhoon were less than 1/2 of the claims for just that one (Merlin Engined) subtype of the P-40.

I really don't think you want to get into a discussion about USAAF claims. If you want to go that route, then the P-40F shot down the whole Luftwaffe three times over! Please go and tell all the Mustang pilots they were lying, there were no Jerries over Berlin in 1944 because the P-40F FGs shot down all the Jerries in 1943.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It just needed a new engine, fuselage, wings and cockpit.

You mean as in "Tempest"?

 

[Mad Dog]

….by what metric do you hold the Warhawk to be a failure?.....

I don't, I just don't think it was as good a fighter as the Typhoon. But if you want the opinion of pilots that actually flew it, many DAF Commonwealth pilots actually refused to and asked for posting to Hurricane units instead! Even those that became aces in it were not blind to the P-40s many vices. As Jim "Eddie" Edwards put it:
"In my estimation, the Kittyhawk was not an easy aircraft to fly properly and, as a result, we lost a good number of pilots while training. Some Hurricane pilots just flatly refused to fly it, preferring to go back to the Hurricane squadrons. In the first few months after conversion to Kittyhawks, all the squadrons lost heavily to the 109s. It didn't seem to matter whether they were sprogs, sergeant pilots or Battle of Britain veterans. The 109s still hacked them down...."
With the instability of the Kittyhawk in the lateral plane at changing speeds, Jim said:
"...in a dog-fight with violent changes of speed, it was all one could do to fly the aircraft...."
Regarding the Kittyhawk II and III:
"260 Squadron flew the Kitty IIs from 1 September '42 to 17 December '42, when the squadron received Kitty IIIs.....Eventually, with the Mk.III , the Kittyhawk became a good, stable fighting aircraft although it never did have enough power or climbing ability compared to the Me.109s or Spitfires.....The cruising speed of the Kittyhawk II was reasonably fast and equal to the Spit.V and the Mk.III was comparable to the Spit.IX. However, the Kittyhawk didn't jump when the throttle was advanced to full power and it didn't climb worth a damn like the Spitfire. It would turn inside the 109 but not as easily as the Spitfire."
Hardly a ringing endorsement.

 

[Schweik]

By "in Europe" I'm guessing you mean bombing in Italy against negligible aerial opposition. That's a far different proposition to the Typhoons flying over Germany in the last months of the War, when they could and did still meet all manner of Luftwaffe fighters, even jets.

Wait I thought there weren't any good Luftwaffe pilots left by 1942? Which is it?

 

[michael rauls]

I really don't think you want to get into a discussion about USAAF claims. If you want to go that route, then the P-40F shot down the whole Luftwaffe three times over! Please go and tell all the Mustang pilots they were lying, there were no Jerries over Berlin in 1944 because the P-40F FGs shot down all the Jerries in 1943.

That goes for all types in all air forces mostly due to reasons not related to any intentional malfeasance. That is why claims are best used in a comparative manner and it that way are valid for comparison from the p40 to other types unless there is some reason to believe that p40 pilots were of inherently poorer judgement of events or of lesser integrity than pilots of other types.