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

[Mad Dog]

Apologies, I thought I was replying to Schweik. He seems to need the bold type and a 2-by-4 to hammer the facts home.

 

[Mad Dog]

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?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One final time. To all parties involved, knock it off with the snide insults. My patience is running out, and I don't like being ignored.

 

[michael rauls]

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).

I agree. It's not the most pertinent statistic I can think of but I don't think id say it's totally worthless. It does measure a certain amount of what they call in the investment world" ROI" ir " return on investment" for whetever the reasons it occurred. Some of those will most assuredly be inherent to the characteristics of the aircraft in question itself and many as you point out due to extraneous factors.
However, like I said I was just trying to list every possible measure of success or lack thereof for the purposes of the discussion.

 

[Kevin J]

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).

I agree, but IMHO, production to victories, does give a good idea of cost effectiveness, and you do need to run your war as cheaply as possible.

So with the Mustang, exactly how many never made it out of the States to operational squadrons? One figure I came across was 6000. This would put the USAAF Mustang on the pedestal as the most cost effective single seat fighter in WW2 as it means an average of one aerial victory for every Mustang that reached a front line squadron.

In the Pacific the RAAF scored 125 victories with their 294 Kittyhawk I's, II's and III's. Once the Spitfire VIII takes over the fighter role and their P-40N's take on the fighter-bomber role, victories fall to just 24.

 

[Mad Dog]

".....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? "…. And not a P-40F in sight! Not even the Soviets, who had long-since sent their P-40s to back-line units. The Typhoons were still finding the odd combat, despite concentrating on ground-attack. By the way, the USAAF over Germany claimed more German jet kills than were actually flown by all the Luftwaffe jet units on all fronts, but I suppose they were all old P-40F pilots, so that is understandable.

 

[Kevin J]

".....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? "…. And not a P-40F in sight! Not even the Soviets, who had long-since sent their P-40s to back-line units. The Typhoons were still finding the odd combat, despite concentrating on ground-attack. By the way, the USAAF over Germany claimed more German jet kills than were actually flown by all the Luftwaffe jet units on all fronts, but I suppose they were all old P-40F pilots, so that is understandable.

The Luftwaffe did even better in the 1940 BoB when they claimed to have shot down over 2000 Spitfires, which meant those built in 1941.

 

[Mad Dog]

I agree, but IMHO, production to victories, does give a good idea of cost effectiveness, and you do need to run your war as cheaply as possible.

So with the Mustang, exactly how many never made it out of the States to operational squadrons? One figure I came across was 6000. This would put the USAAF Mustang on the pedestal as the most cost effective single seat fighter in WW2 as it means an average of one aerial victory for every Mustang that reached a front line squadron.

True, not going to argue that the Mustang wasn't a very good fighter. But that's the P-51, not the P-40.

In the Pacific the RAAF scored 125 victories with their 294 Kittyhawk I's, II's and III's. Once the Spitfire VIII takes over the fighter role and their P-40N's take on the fighter-bomber role, victories fall to just 24.

By the time the Spits arrived the chances of meeting the Japanese in air combat was slight, hence the drop in kills. The Spitfires were so under-utilised in the fighter role they were soon being used for ground-attack as well, something that angered experienced pilots like Clive Caldwell. In New Guinea, it was a similar fate for the P-39 compared to the P-38. The P-38 had the range to go looking for the elusive Japanese, whilst the P-39 did not. But when the Japanese showed up, the P-39 still managed to shoot them down. George Welch is credited with four kills over Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941. He was flying P-39s with the 36th Fighter Squadron of the 8th FG in New Guinea and scored three kills, all in one day, the whole six months he was with them, simply due to the lack of opportunities for combat. As soon as he transferred to a P-38 unit he got more opportunities and racked up nine more kills in only three months. Like the P-39 units, the RAAF Spitfire units didn't have the range to go looking for the Japanese.

 

[michael rauls]

True, not going to argue that the Mustang wasn't a very good fighter. But that's the P-51, not the P-40.

By the time the Spits arrived the chances of meeting the Japanese in air combat was slight, hence the drop in kills. The Spitfires were so under-utilised in the fighter role they were soon being used for ground-attack as well, something that angered experienced pilots like Clive Caldwell. In New Guinea, it was a similar fate for the P-39 compared to the P-38. The P-38 had the range to go looking for the elusive Japanese, whilst the P-39 did not. But when the Japanese showed up, the P-39 still managed to shoot them down. George Welch is credited with four kills over Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941. He was flying P-39s with the 36th Fighter Squadron of the 8th FG in New Guinea and scored three kills, all in one day, the whole six months he was with them, simply due to the lack of opportunities for combat. As soon as he transferred to a P-38 unit he got more opportunities and racked up nine more kills in only three months. Like the P-39 units, the RAAF Spitfire units didn't have the range to go looking for the Japanese.

It would seem to me that claims to production or return on investment if you like would hold the same degree of validity whatever that may be whether it be used on the p51, the p40, or whatever. In other words, you can change the plane but the metric remains the same.

 

[wuzak]

I agree. It's not the most pertinent statistic I can think of but I don't think id say it's totally worthless. It does measure a certain amount of what they call in the investment world" ROI" ir " return on investment" for whetever the reasons it occurred. Some of those will most assuredly be inherent to the characteristics of the aircraft in question itself and many as you point out due to extraneous factors.
However, like I said I was just trying to list every possible measure of success or lack thereof for the purposes of the discussion.

I agree, but IMHO, production to victories, does give a good idea of cost effectiveness, and you do need to run your war as cheaply as possible.

So with the Mustang, exactly how many never made it out of the States to operational squadrons? One figure I came across was 6000. This would put the USAAF Mustang on the pedestal as the most cost effective single seat fighter in WW2 as it means an average of one aerial victory for every Mustang that reached a front line squadron.

In the Pacific the RAAF scored 125 victories with their 294 Kittyhawk I's, II's and III's. Once the Spitfire VIII takes over the fighter role and their P-40N's take on the fighter-bomber role, victories fall to just 24.

If 3,000 fighters are made and only 200 are used in the fighter-only role, then the statistic is useless. Particularly if their use as fighters does not lead to much in the way of enemy contact.

It also does not value the role as a defensive aircraft, for example, which may involve a lot of sorties with no enemy contact. But still a valuable role.

 

[Kevin J]

If 3,000 fighters are made and only 200 are used in the fighter-only role, then the statistic is useless. Particularly if their use as fighters does not lead to much in the way of enemy contact.

It also does not value the role as a defensive aircraft, for example, which may involve a lot of sorties with no enemy contact. But still a valuable role.

To me it makes a lot more sense than say the Corsair statistic of 19 victories per loss in aerial combat, as it takes into account training accidents, mechanical failures resulting in losses, wear and tare, write offs etc..

 

[XBe02Drvr]

unless there is reason to believe that p40 pilots were of inherently poorer judgement than pilots of other types.

Of course! They consented to fly a Curtiss product. Isn't that proof enough?

 

[michael rauls]

If 3,000 fighters are made and only 200 are used in the fighter-only role, then the statistic is useless. Particularly if their use as fighters does not lead to much in the way of enemy contact.

It also does not value the role as a defensive aircraft, for example, which may involve a lot of sorties with no enemy contact. But still a valuable role.

After giving it some thought it seems that production to claims would have some validity as a statistic in one direction but not the other. That is seems there's no way a fighter aircraft gets to a high production to claims ratio without a good part of the reason being qualities inherent to the design itself( even with more oportunity you've still got tu shoot down the enemy) but a low ratio wouldn't nescesarily point to a defective design as there can be many mitigating factors as you pointed out.
That said it is certainly a crude metric to be sure.
However, couple a high claims to production ratio and a kill/ loss ratio well into the positive and a low cost of production as we have here and it seems you've got a pretty successful aircraft from every angle for whatever the reasons.
What do think?

 

[Kevin J]

After giving it some thought it seems that production to claims would have some validity as a statistic in one direction but not the other. That is seems there's no way a fighter aircraft gets to a high production to claims ratio without a good part of the reason being qualities inherent to the design itself( even with more oportunity you've still got tu shoot down the enemy) but a low ratio wouldn't nescesarily point to a defective design as there can be many mitigating factors as you pointed out.
That said it is certainly a crude metric to be sure.
However, couple a high claims to production ratio and a kill/ loss ratio well into the positive and a low cost of production as we have here and it seems you've got a pretty successful aircraft from every angle for whatever the reasons.
What do think?

In which case the P-40 outshines the Typhoon in both initial cost and numbers produced to victory ratio.

 

[wuzak]

In which case the P-40 outshines the Typhoon in both initial cost

Yes, the P-40 was cheaper to produce. That does not make it better or more capable.

and numbers produced to victory ratio.

Which is why you like the statistic so much.

Number of victories by airframe is not the best comparison to start with, due to many factors, and victories per airframe produced is a much worse comparison.

 

[pbehn]

If cost was ever an important stat the P-40 and Hurricane would still be in use. The cost of a P-38 only became a topic of discussion when there were single engine planes that could do the same job.

 

[Schweik]

I did not ignore the moderation comment, and this post right here is my last reply to that particular forum member for 3 days in this thread. But this guy is saying things like "No, you claimed that the P-40F was the greatest fighter since sliced bread was invented!" and various other easily verifiable untruths, quite a few in caps etc.. He's basically trying to shout anyone down that disagrees with him.

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.

Please show me quotes from each of these pilots saying they had disdain for the Kittyhawk. P-40s were disparaged by Anglo-American military leadership and administrators, for understandable reasons (the altitude limitation was a serious flaw) but a lot of the pilots did like it and weren't shy about saying so. Some didn't that is certain, including some high scoring P-40 aces for example Neville Duke. But it's not hard to find those that did, for example contrary to your statement above, Billy Drake (see below).

AVG pilot Erik Shilling was a well known advocate for the P-40. Some of his comments included "If you look up maneuverable in Webster's Dictionary, by all criteria the P-40 was more maneuverable. " and "The P-40 was faster (354 mph with combat load vs a little over 300 for the Zero), the roll rate at 240-280 mph was 3 times faster and the aircraft could outdive the Zero."

Australian P-40 quadruple P-40 Ace and 112 RAF sqn commander Clive Caldwell said the P-40 had "almost no vices" and that it "would take a tremendous amount of punishment, violent aerobatics as well as enemy action"

Nicky Barr, 3 RAAF P-40 double Ace noted: "The Kittyhawk became, to me, a friend. It was quite capable of getting you out of trouble more often than not. It was a real warhorse."

Robert DeHaven, 49th FG double ace and Silver Star winner, noted: "If you flew wisely, the P-40 was a very capable aircraft. [It] could outturn a P-38, a fact that some pilots didn't realize when they made the transition between the two aircraft. "

and

"[Y]ou could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons ... on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll [a Zero]. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls... You could push things, too. Because ... f you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. [...] That left you in control of the fight."

Nikolai Golodnikov said in an interview:

"Actually, the P-40 could engage all Messerschmitts on equal terms, almost to the end of 1943. If you take into consideration all the characteristics of the P-40, then the Tomahawk was equal to the Bf 109F and the Kittyhawk was slightly better. Its speed and vertical and horizontal manoeuvre were good and fully competitive with enemy aircraft. Acceleration rate was a bit low, but when you got used to the engine, it was OK. We considered the P-40 a decent fighter plane"

General Benjamin Davis of the 99th FS ("Tuskegee") had a lot of praise for and confidence in P-40s:

"The P-40 operations in the Pacific and Europe were much like the F-86 and the MiG in Korea*. All the MiG's had to do was stay away from the F-86's; yet we had an eleven-to-one kill ratio of F-86's over MiG's**. Same thing with the P-40 and the Me 109. If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P-40's couldn't get them. When the Me 109's came down to engage the P-40's we were superior."

Charlie Hall also 99th FS said:

"The P-40? Sure we liked them. Most of us got home that flew them. I don't think the real potential of that aircraft was ever realized. Anyway that's what we had and it did the job. I fought with four .50s. Took out the other two so I could carry more ammunition. "

Tenth Air Force pilot Bob O'Neil (16th FS, 4 victories) ... who was stationed in the Assam Valley India and in Burma and fought over the 'hump' in the Himalayas, said:

"I loved those P-40's. They had their faults; but they'd get you home when nothing else would. All our battles with the Japs were between 15,000 and 20,000 feet. We couldn't out-maneuver their fighters but we could out-dive them and the Hawk would take more punishment than anything we met. It was a sturdy, fine airplane."

RAF 24-kill Ace Billy Drake (13 victories in the P-40) praised the heavy guns of the Kittyhawk and said in this interview:

"Altogether, air to air it was just as good as anything we were liable to meet." "The six 0.5 guns had a terrific effect" "If you were caught out, if you put it in a dive it went very fast"

I can post plenty more examples if needed.

*General Davis was Director of Operations and Training, FEAF, Japan, fought over Korea and was commander of the 13th AF during the Korean War
**I know this isn't the actual ratio that is just a direct quote

 

[Glider]

There is a lot of comment about the use of the Spitfire as a high level cover and the lack of range which impacted the targets that could be covered by the Spit V. A lot of this is true but one important factor seems to have been forgotten and that is the impact on the Luftwaffe. It would have been the Hight of folly for the Germans to assume that this raid or that, did or didn't have Spit V cover.
The Luftwaffe had to work on the basis that any raid had the Spit V cover and plan/act accordingly. This would have limited their ability to patrol and the tactics they could use. A lesson that was repeated when the first Spit IX's arrived in the desert, as the impact they had was out of all proportion to the numbers deployed.

 

[Shortround6]

In which case the P-40 outshines the Typhoon in both initial cost and numbers produced to victory ratio.

It ought to out shine the Typhoon, 1200-1300hp 12 cylinder engine vs 2200hp 24 cylinder engine. a 6100-6600lb empty weight airplane to an over 8000lb empty weight airplane,
I sure hope the P-40 was cheaper in initial cost.

numbers produced to victories ratio has so many holes and big enough ones to drive a fleet of tractor trailers through all running parallel.

The numbers for the British use of Typhoons and Spitfires over several months in 1944 has been posted at least twice. Same tactical air force, same theater, close to the same numbers of squadrons. same time period. Same enemy opposition. Yet the numbers of air to air kills and the number of bombs dropped are way off.
You know, just maybe (heavy sarcasm) the planes were not tasked with the same job/missions during this time period even though operated by the same tactical air force.

This makes total nonsense out of the idea that you can compare different theaters at different times, against an enemy who's mix of aircraft is different and who has a different defensive set of problems of their own. Just saying there were 109s in NA and 109s in NW Europe therefore the defence was the same over looks pilot ability, fuel availability (both were short, bu thow short?) Priority of the defenders for engineering which types of air strikes/sweeps and so on.

Neither plane operated in a vacuum, both had support from other types of fighters to a greater or lesser extent on different missions/days.

One should note that the British (obviously delusional) built around 350 Typhoons after the US stopped making P-40s. and several hundred of the last P-40s built went directly to scrap yard/s. Fall of the 1944 and the US didn't want them and they couldn't find anybody else to foist them off on.

 

[Schweik]

Ok, one more post sorry can't resist.

I'm not personally a fan of the production vs. victory ratio beyond a certain point. Someone posted statistics along these lines making the Defiant and the Fulmar look good. And I don't think victories can always be compared Theater to Theater. But it's hypocritical to say that victory claims aren't part of the assessment of a fighters value, and it's a bit hyperbolic to suggest that comparing a Typhoon and a P-40F, both of which fought the same main opponent (Bf 109s and Fw 190s) in the same time period with some of the same pilots and were produced in roughly the same numbers is the equivalent to matching up an F-22 with a Sopwith Camel. Both were primarily used as fighter bombers in that part of the world with a limited number used primarily as fighters, both for the most part faced the same aircraft. So it's not beyond the pale to take that factor in to consideration, I just wouldn't say it was the only or more important criteria.

As for the scrapyards, my understanding about the Typhoon was that almost all of them did end up in the scrapyard as soon as the war was over and nobody wanted them. Some P-40s by contrast were still being used into the 1950's.

The Typhoon was a very promising but also flawed design which was extremely fast, but it had long teething troubles and disappointing outcomes in the field from 1941- 1943, with it's problems being partly resolved by mid 1944. The design was only ultimately 'fixed' however by the introduction of the Tempest, Sea Fury and so on, which had outstanding performance and lived up to the promise of the original Typhoon design.

The P-40 speaking more broadly than just the P-40F, was also a flawed design which was never really fixed, only incrementally improved, but was rather replaced by other aircraft (mainly P-47 and P-51). However in spite of the flaws it to a large extent overperformed in terms of outcomes and remained in use far longer than expected. It peaked in utility in 1942 and 1943, but it was certainly obsolete by the second quarter of 1944. That it could still be used as a fighter bomber in Italy and as a fighter in Burma and the Pacific had to do more with the general decline of Axis air power and the complete and partial failure of a lot of other new Allied designs. The P-40 could get the job done without too many losses and as a result, so it kept getting put back into the breach as it were.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the two types - one a very advanced design with some flaws, the other a much more old fashioned design also with flaws but certain saving graces. The Typhoon was, in fits and starts and with a lot of setbacks on the way, slowly on it's way up to glory, albeit only realized in the Tempest. The P-40 was gradually on it's way down to obsolescence, but it remained useful far longer than it seems like it should have. I think they med somewhere in the middle.

As for how the Typhoon performed as a fighter, if you are really interested in that question (as opposed to just really wanting to win an argument) I recommend listening to the voices of actual Typhoon pilots, which you can do here, here, and here. I have yet to see that kind of dismal assessment from a P-40 combat pilot.

Regarding the Spitfire V
It was the best fighter on the Allied side when it arrived in the MTO. However I think the significance of it's presence was exaggerated in the historical shorthand about that part of the war and is still being done here in this thread. I previously posted a breakdown which you can read here of all the air combat in the Med for October of 1942, pulled from Shores. It might be worth revisiting some of the stats from that post:

• In that rather important month, Spitfires made claims on 15 days, P-40 pilots (RAF and US together) made claims on 25 days.
• Spitfire pilots made claims for a total of 35.5 victories on 15 days
• P-40 pilots made claims for 85.5 victories (56.5 by RAF, 29 by US) on 25 days
• Hurricane pilots made claims for 12 victories
• Actual Allied Losses were 10 x spitfires shot down and 1 crash landed, 39 x P-40s of all types shot down (3 x USAAF) and 14 crash landed, and 17 x Hurricanes shot down and 2 crash landed, plus 6 bombers shot down.
• Axis loses were 34 Bf 109s shot down (mostly F models, but 10 G models) and 7 crash landed, 10 x MC 202 shot down with 8 crash landed, 6 CR 42s shot down (all in one raid), and 18 bombers shot down (mostly Stukas).

Total Allied Claims vs. Axis losses (including crash-landed aircraft): 133 claims / 83 actual losses

From here you can see that by that point, in the time of the crucial battle of 2nd El Alamein, there weren't enough Spitfires in Theater yet and the P-40 units (still mostly RAF / Commonwealth at that point) were still bearing the brunt of combat against the Axis air forces.

There are two other points to keep in mind about the Spitfire in particular. First, Bf 109F4s and G2s could and did routinely attack Spitfire Vs from above. It was such a problem in fact that various attempts were made to lighten the Spit. Second, the Spitfires were simply around not in all parts of the front. The limited range also played a role in that. They didn't fly all the time either. What's more, the P-40s and the Spitfires often flew on different days. Nor did the German pilots particularly fear the Spitfires in the Med, as you may have noted in the German pilot testimony quoted upthread. The vokes filter seems to have hampered the Spitfires performance somewhat.

That said, in terms of outcomes, the Spitfires clearly punched above their weight. But so did the USAAF P-40 units and the RAF units flying the later model P-40s, if not quite to the same extent.

So I think the notion that the P-40 only achieved success in the later part of the Mediterranean Air War due to the arrival of the Spitfires is clearly incorrect.

Almost all the Allied victory claims against Axis fighters were by the Spitfires and late model (P-40F/L, Kittyhawk II and Kittyhawk III) P-40s. The Hurricanes and older P-40s (Kittyhawk I and Tomahawk) shot down most of the bombers.