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

[Schweik]

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.

Right, because USAAF pilots overclaimed more than German, Russian, Japanese or British pilots?

This has been hashed out, please feel free to delve into it. We have comparisons of German and Allied claims and losses for every day of combat in the Med well into 1944, and the numbers do speak for themselves. I already reposted some of them recently.




By the way, I promised you a quote, here it is. It's from Rudolf Sinner, technical officer and pilot for II.JG 27. According to this he was a 39 victory experten. This passage is from Mediterranean Air War, Volume 2, by Christopher Shores, et al, pages 26 and 27. Bold emphasis is from me. He thought the P-40s weren't so great but he did note they were very good for bomber escort:

"We only met British bomber formations occassionally. If we were able to attack, they were nearly always covered by a strong British fighter formation, and the attack generally split up into individual attacks between fighters. The Curtiss P-40, although not as good an aircraft to hunt the Bf 109s in, was an excellent aircraft to fly close escort to bombers. It was very dangerous to attack a bomber formation escorted by the manouverable Curtiss's, and without prospects. Another reason for the relatively light losses of the British bombers was the excellent tight and clean formation flying. They held formation even in heavy flak with admirable courage, and this enabled them to defend themselves with the very concentrated fire of their rear gunners, as well as helping the fighters covering them.

The Germans operated in the hunting grounds of the British fighters, mainly with bombers (Ju 87s in the majority of cases) We did not fly many offensive missions with fighters, and for the British fighters it was relatively easy to attack our bombers with good chances of success."

and on DAF tactics:

"Very seldom did we meet British formations of numerical inferiority. The rule was for two, four or six Bf 109s to meet enemy fighters in strengths of from 12 to 20 aircraft. The British units always flew very low, and always in very senseless combat formations. This pleased us, but we were unable to understand it. The British flying facilitated the German fighter pilots to see the enemy first, apoproach unseen, and choose the position of attack at will, while the British lost mobility and visibility. from one mission to the next I was afraid the British must recognize the cause of their helplessness, and change their formation to a looser one. But, God be praised! my fears were groundless! I met my first fighter opponents flying correct tactical formations over Tunisia, and they were Americans. I believe British tactics in Africa were wrong; they were based on numbers, 'flock tactics, and, as a last resort, defensive circles."

and on the Spitfire:

"It was unintelligible to me that the British built Hurricanes and used them against the Germans in 1942. Likewise I was astonished that they used the Curtiss for other tasks than bomber escort. These poitnts, together with insufficient armament (machine guns in the wings) and bada cannon ammunition, were a blessing to us. It was a mistake that the Spitfires arrived in Africa so late. In the course of my not too frequent encounters with Spitfire squadrons in Africa, I had the impression that the pilots were not using the very dangerous mertis of this type to the best advantage. The spitfire squadrons in Africa - contrary to those on the channel front - operated in a heavy and clumsy way. "

It's possible this 'heaviness' he refers to was due to the effects of the Vokes filter, or possibly pilots not as well trained or as familiar on the type. Or just that the matchup between Spit V and Bf 109F4 or G2 was a lot closer than Spit I or II vs. Bf 109E4 etc.

 

[Mad Dog]

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

By 1945 the good ones left with good fighters, fuel and ammo weren't fighting against the P-40Fs over Italy, they were fighting over Germany. Please pretend otherwise, it just makes you even funnier.

 

[Schweik]

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.

Especially since most of the Aces who flew P-40s in the Med were British / Commonwealth pilots who went on to score many victories in other types like Spitfires etc. Why would they lie when flying P-40s and then suddenly become honest when they begin flying another type?

 

[Schweik]

By 1945 the good ones left with good fighters, fuel and ammo weren't fighting against the P-40Fs over Italy, they were fighting over Germany. Please pretend otherwise, it just makes you even funnier.

My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that by June 1944 the Typhoon was being used almost exclusively as a bomber /or ground attack plane. This is why they didn't score many victories from that time onward. The Tempest was probably tangling with and maybe shooting down Me 262s and Fw 190D's and other exotic baddassery of the Luftwaffe, but I don't think the Typhoon was.

I also believe most of the Luftwaffe war effort by 1945, such as it was, was actually 1) on the Russian Front where they were facing La-7s, Yak-3s and Yak 9s, and 2) against the heavy bombers and their escorts at high altitude, which would by that time in daylight be P-51s for the most part, right?

 

[Mad Dog]

Right, because USAAF pilots overclaimed more than German, Russian, Japanese or British pilots?

This has been hashed out, please feel free to delve into it. We have comparisons of German and Allied claims and losses for every day of combat in the Med well into 1944, and the numbers do speak for themselves. I already reposted some of them recently.




By the way, I promised you a quote, here it is. It's from Rudolf Sinner, technical officer and pilot for II.JG 27. According to this he was a 39 victory experten. This passage is from Mediterranean Air War, Volume 2, by Christopher Shores, et al, pages 26 and 27. Bold emphasis is from me. He thought the P-40s weren't so great but he did note they were very good for bomber escort:

"We only met British bomber formations occassionally. If we were able to attack, they were nearly always covered by a strong British fighter formation, and the attack generally split up into individual attacks between fighters. The Curtiss P-40, although not as good an aircraft to hunt the Bf 109s in, was an excellent aircraft to fly close escort to bombers. It was very dangerous to attack a bomber formation escorted by the manouverable Curtiss's, and without prospects. Another reason for the relatively light losses of the British bombers was the excellent tight and clean formation flying. They held formation even in heavy flak with admirable courage, and this enabled them to defend themselves with the very concentrated fire of their rear gunners, as well as helping the fighters covering them.

The Germans operated in the hunting grounds of the British fighters, mainly with bombers (Ju 87s in the majority of cases) We did not fly many offensive missions with fighters, and for the British fighters it was relatively easy to attack our bombers with good chances of success."

and on DAF tactics:

"Very seldom did we meet British formations of numerical inferiority. The rule was for two, four or six Bf 109s to meet enemy fighters in strengths of from 12 to 20 aircraft. The British units always flew very low, and always in very senseless combat formations. This pleased us, but we were unable to understand it. The British flying facilitated the German fighter pilots to see the enemy first, apoproach unseen, and choose the position of attack at will, while the British lost mobility and visibility. from one mission to the next I was afraid the British must recognize the cause of their helplessness, and change their formation to a looser one. But, God be praised! my fears were groundless! I met my first fighter opponents flying correct tactical formations over Tunisia, and they were Americans. I believe British tactics in Africa were wrong; they were based on numbers, 'flock tactics, and, as a last resort, defensive circles."

and on the Spitfire:

"It was unintelligible to me that the British built Hurricanes and used them against the Germans in 1942. Likewise I was astonished that they used the Curtiss for other tasks than bomber escort. These poitnts, together with insufficient armament (machine guns in the wings) and bada cannon ammunition, were a blessing to us. It was a mistake that the Spitfires arrived in Africa so late. In the course of my not too frequent encounters with Spitfire squadrons in Africa, I had the impression that the pilots were not using the very dangerous mertis of this type to the best advantage. The spitfire squadrons in Africa - contrary to those on the channel front - operated in a heavy and clumsy way. "

It's possible this 'heaviness' he refers to was due to the effects of the Vokes filter, or possibly pilots not as well trained or as familiar on the type. Or just that the matchup between Spit V and Bf 109F4 or G2 was a lot closer than Spit I or II vs. Bf 109E4 etc.

 

[Mad Dog]

So please do point out the section where he mentions the experience of flying against the Typhoon? Oh, he doesn't! So all your post does is illustrate how easy he found it to shoot down P-40s. Again, not exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

[Schweik]

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...."

If you read what he wrote there carefully, he's referring to inadequate training on type. There was one squadron which went back to Hurricanes just as he described, they did not exactly excel in combat.

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.

And yet he seems to have shot down 18 or 19 Luftwaffe aircraft in it, mostly Bf 109s, including two experten - Otto Shulz on June 17, 1942 and Gunter Steinhausen on Sept 6, 1942.

All these quotes have been posted to the thread before. I have his memoir. Edwards, like Caldwell and Bobby Gibbes and Neville Duke and Billy Drake - talked about the inadequate training on the type and the bad tactics being the main reasons for the problems they did have.

 

[Schweik]

So please do point out the section where he mentions the experience of flying against the Typhoon? Oh, he doesn't! So all your post does is illustrate how easy he found it to shoot down P-40s. Again, not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Did you read this part? " The Curtiss P-40, although not as good an aircraft to hunt the Bf 109s in, was an excellent aircraft to fly close escort to bombers. It was very dangerous to attack a bomber formation escorted by the manouverable Curtiss's, and without prospects. "

This is basically what I said upthread. The Spit, once it got there, was used to defend the bases and fight close to the front lines. The P-40 was used as an escort, and in particular the (mostly American flown) Merlin engined P-40s were escorting large formations of B-25s and other medium bombers which basically wrecked all the German airfields in Tunisia and helped win the battles leading to the German collapse in North Africa.

 

[Schweik]

Anyway, I've said my piece on this, and the data speaks for itself at this point and it's all already been posted. That quote from Rudolph Sinner wasn't transcribed before here so far as I know but the effort doesn't seem appreciated. I sense a certain mounting hysteria, which means it's probably a good time for me to take a break from the thread for a day or two.

 

[Mad Dog]

Especially since most of the Aces who flew P-40s in the Med were British / Commonwealth pilots who went on to score many victories in other types like Spitfires etc. Why would they lie when flying P-40s and then suddenly become honest when they begin flying another type?

Apart from the fact you just claimed the USAAF P-40F units won the War by themselves, the Commonwealth P-40 aces are all very clear - to a man, they say the P-40 was the worst fighter they flew! Many of the Allied aces went on to fly Spitfires, Typhoons and Tempests over Germany, and not one of them said "Gee, I wish I was flying a P-40F now!" Billy Drake was clear in his disdain for the Kittyhawk, as was Clive Caldwell, Neville Duke, Bobby Gibbes, Eddie Edwards, just to name a few. Please find me even one P-40F jock that later switched to the P-47 or P-51 and regretted it.

 

[Mad Dog]

Did you read this part? " The Curtiss P-40, although not as good an aircraft to hunt the Bf 109s in, was an excellent aircraft to fly close escort to bombers. It was very dangerous to attack a bomber formation escorted by the manouverable Curtiss's, and without prospects. "

This is basically what I said upthread. The Spit, once it got there, was used to defend the bases and fight close to the front lines. The P-40 was used as an escort, and in particular the (mostly American flown) Merlin engined P-40s were escorting large formations of B-25s and other medium bombers which basically wrecked all the German airfields in Tunisia and helped win the battles leading to the German collapse in North Africa.

 

[wuzak]

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.

The most useless and pointless stat ever dreamed up in regards to comparing fighter aircraft.

 

[michael rauls]

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.

Fair enough. The early models certainly had a reputation for being somewhat unstable. So I have read. But latter models( and were still talking pretty early in the war) remidied this problem, at least from what I gather. I think if I were used to flying something as stable as a Hurricane I wouldn't want to change to an early model p40 either but the p40s did do better in combat. The p40 was certainly not perfect but it was by any measure I can think of successful. By the time time we get to the F/L versions( the subject of this thread) you've got a pretty good aircraft.
Just about everything got hacked up by the 109s at first but it didn't stay that way.
There are certainly quotes by pilots that didn't care for it but some pilots did as well.
Maybe not a ringing endorsement but not a damnation either. In those quotes I find that the p40 is as fast as the Spitfire and 109 and turns inside the 109 and that the later mdels were indeed stable. And I would add the p40 had quite a bit more range. Doesn't matter how good your performance is if you can't get to where the fighting is.That said if the fighting were in range I would certainly rather be flying a Spitfire but sometimes, many times, that extra range is critical.
There is enough good and bad in those quotes one can fish out a few things to back up there preconceptions either way.
I think it's certainly fair to say the p40 was not without it's falts but also had enough good qualities to make it successful by any measure. Certainly much more successful than one would have been lead to believe by most of that which has been written about it over the years.

 

[Mad Dog]

"....This is basically what I said upthread....." No, you claimed that the P-40F was the greatest fighter since sliced bread was invented! The RAF use of the Kittyhawk for escorts bordered on the suicidal, but they had to BECAUSE THE KITTYHAWK COULDN'T CLIMB NOR ACCELLERATE FOR SHINOLA, AND WASN'T FAST ENOUGH TO CATCH THE 109s. Their tactics were to place themselves between the bombers and the 109s and hope to avoid the hit with a quick turn, because it was all they could do! I'll say it again -THE P-40 WAS SO POOR AS A FIGHTER IT WAS ALL THEY COULD DO! In Europe, with Spitfires, the RAF flew fighter sweeps ahead of and above the bombers at the same altitudes as the 109s, they couldn't in the Desert because they had to use the P-40. When the USAAF started flying escorts over Germany they DID NOT FLY CLOSE ESCORTS because it was a defensive tactic that put them at a disadvantage. But then they could be more aggressive because they had the P-47 by then, not the P-40F. Please go read up on Hub Zemke's 56th FG and the fan tactic.

 

[michael rauls]

The most useless and pointless stat ever dreamed up in regards to comparing fighter aircraft.

Well don't know that I totally agree. It certainly isn't as useful in evaluating aircraft as other stats but it would seem to have some value in that it tells how much has been achieved by the gross number of a particular type produced. I used it only because I was trying to think of every possible stat by which to measure the effectiveness of a fighter aircraft in response to a poster asserting the p40 as unsuccessful.

 

[Mad Dog]

.....I think if I were used to flying something as stable as a Hurricane I wouldn't want to change to an early model p40 either but the p40s did do better in combat.....

No. Pilots like Lance Wade scored just as heavily in the Hurricane in the Desert. Wade was to become the leading Allied fighter ace in the Med before his death in January 1944.

…..In those quotes I find that the p40 is as fast as the Spitfire....

That was cruising speed. The Spit Vc, even with the Vokes filter, was faster than the P-40F at all altitudes, and - more importantly - could climb and accelerate much better.

….I think it's certainly fair to say the p40 was not without it's faults but also had enough good qualities to make it successful by any measure......

Agreed, but nothing to say it was better than the Typhoon. Quite the opposite.

 

[Mad Dog]

Anyway, I've said my piece on this, and the data speaks for itself at this point and it's all already been posted. That quote from Rudolph Sinner wasn't transcribed before here so far as I know but the effort doesn't seem appreciated. I sense a certain mounting hysteria, which means it's probably a good time for me to take a break from the thread for a day or two.

All your data showed was your lack of research, and the only hysteria is your rabid defence of the P-40F against quite plain evidence that it was, in no way, better than the Typhoon.

 

[michael rauls]

"....This is basically what I said upthread....." No, you claimed that the P-40F was the greatest fighter since sliced bread was invented! The RAF use of the Kittyhawk for escorts bordered on the suicidal, but they had to BECAUSE THE KITTYHAWK COULDN'T CLIMB NOR ACCELLERATE FOR SHINOLA, AND WASN'T FAST ENOUGH TO CATCH THE 109s. Their tactics were to place themselves between the bombers and the 109s and hope to avoid the hit with a quick turn, because it was all they could do! I'll say it again -THE P-40 WAS SO POOR AS A FIGHTER IT WAS ALL THEY COULD DO! In Europe, with Spitfires, the RAF flew fighter sweeps ahead of and above the bombers at the same altitudes as the 109s, they couldn't in the Desert because they had to use the P-40. When the USAAF started flying escorts over Germany they DID NOT FLY CLOSE ESCORTS because it was a defensive tactic that put them at a disadvantage. But then they could be more aggressive because they had the P-47 by then, not the P-40F. Please go read up on Hub Zemke's 56th FG and the fan tactic.

Jeez man....... I thought we were coming to a midleground there but apparently not. I suggest you go back and read the thread.
I never claimed the p40 was the greatest or anything like that. If you look through the thread you will find that I constantly held the Typhoon go be the better of the two.
I just asserted that the p40 was alot better than its been given credit for over the years and actually did pretty well. And as politely as I could corrected a few statements I knew to be false about it such as it being no longer used in Europe later in the war.
Also typing your points in bold face type doesn't make them anymore vallid..................and for whatever it's worth im familiar with the Zemke Fan.

 

[wuzak]

Well don't know that I totally agree. It certainly isn't as useful in evaluating aircraft as other stats but it would seem to have some value in that it tells how much has been achieved by the gross number of a particular type produced. I used it only because I was trying to think of every possible stat by which to measure the effectiveness of a fighter aircraft in response to a poster asserting the p40 as unsuccessful.

There are way too many variables and unknowns in that statistic.

For example, how many of the aircraft produced actually went to combat squadrons, and how many of those squadrons actually did the role that the comparison is about (eg fighter, fighter-bomber, ground attack).

 

[Mad Dog]

If you read what he wrote there carefully, he's referring to inadequate training on type. There was one squadron which went back to Hurricanes just as he described, they did not exactly excel in combat.

No, he is quite clearly expounding how unloved the Kittyhawk was. The fact that pilots would rather go back to Hurricane units, even to units still flying Hurricane Is, just underlines how poor the Kittyhawk models were. And Hurricane units were shooting down plenty of Axis aircraft during the same period, including the kill you claim below for the P-40.

.....And yet he seems to have shot down 18 or 19 Luftwaffe aircraft in it, mostly Bf 109s, including two experten - Otto Shulz on June 17, 1942 and Gunter Steinhausen on Sept 6, 1942......

And that is more of a mark of how good a pilot he was rather than the capabilities of the P-40. No disrespect to Edwards, but he caught Schulz whilst he was busy strafing a downed Hurricane. No dogfight, no turning, no climbing, he just took a shot at Schulz as he came across him, and didn't stick around to fight the other 109s there. To be honest, he probably could have made that kill in a P-26 Peashooter! As regards Steinhausen, it not clear exactly what happened, but Edwards seems to surprised a 109 at low level whilst it was concentrating on shooting down a Hurricane, in a big furball. There is some who credit the kill to a Hurricane of 127Sq RAF. Either way, it has zero bearing on a comparison of the P-40F and the Typhoon. It's like claiming the Brewster Buffalo shot down some Mitsubishi Zeros, therefore the Buffalo must be better than the Vought Corsair! The "logic" is simply farcical.

.....All these quotes have been posted to the thread before. I have his memoir. Edwards, like Caldwell and Bobby Gibbes and Neville Duke and Billy Drake - talked about the inadequate training on the type and the bad tactics being the main reasons for the problems they did have....

And, yet again, still not evidence that the P-40F was as good as the Typhoon.

Consider that the P-40F was slower than a Bf109F or G, couldn't climb with either, and couldn't accelerate to avoid them either. All the P-40F pilot could do was turn and pray. The Typhoon was at least faster than the Bf109F or G at lower and medium altitudes, had a better chance of catching one in a dive or a zoom climb, and had a bigger punch to knock them down with. The Typhoon cruised faster and accelerated faster than the P-40F, which means it was also better equipped to dictate the fight or escape an attack, unlike the P-40, which had to go defensive and rely on turning ability. Pretend all you like, the evidence clearly shows the Typhoon was the better fighter.