Not really because the two engines fitted had about the same swept volume. The P-51 required about 65lbs of ballast in the rear (IIRC) a whirlwind would need hundreds, its been discussed on a few threads here.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Status
Kevin J
Banned
Yes, so you could fit the, but fuel consumption goes up as does take off and landing speeds, and I guess you couldn't carry either drop tanks or bombs without re-stressing the air frame, so better to put the Merlins in the Gloster twin. Hell no, go with the Mosquito.
So, how many tanks did the P-40F destroy....? COUGH*Mortain*COUGH*Falaise Gap*COUGH On that metric, the Typhoon wins hand down.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
True but if my supposition is correct that the production to victory ratio is only useful in one direction i.e. it points to a good design if it is positive( because regardless of having the opportunity you still have to shoot down the enemy)but doesn't nescesarily point to a poor design if it's negative( or lesser than other fighters) because of the possibility of a multitude of mitigating factors like mission type or environment being present.
So while I think it would be reasonable to conclude, at least in a general sense, that the p40 was a successful design due to a good production to claims ratio I'm not sure if any valid comparisons between it and the Typhoon can be made using it.
At least that's the way it looks to me.
Certainly open to oposing views on this. Just kinda thinkin out loud so to speak.
So you want to pretend the Zero and the Typhoon are equivalent? Or the Zero and the Bf109 G or FW190? Seriously!?!?! We're back to the "the Brewster Buffalo shot down some Zeros over Malaya, so it must be better than a Corsair" level of argument, I see.
So, how many of those Japs were flying FW190s? Your "ignore the apples, look how many oranges I can juggle" comparison is enthusiastic but futile.
You can selectively post plenty more quotes that in no way at all show the P-40F as being comparable to the Typhoon. Every single one of the pilots you mentioned went on to happily replace their P-40s (and most of them did NOT fly the P-40F) with better aircraft, including - drumroll! - the Typhoon!
Not one, in any of your posts, supports your argument that the P-40F was somehow better than a Typhoon, whereas I have pointed out the performance and firepower advantages of the Typhoon, let alone the fact the Typhoon was still in the frontline in the toughest theater right to the end of the War, long after the P-40F had been sent to easier battles. You know you can't counter either the performance question or the frontline use, so you just try desperately to ignore it. "Hey, look at me juggle these oranges and pretend it makes a convincing argument!"
Just to try and open your eyes just a smidge, please look at the following performance figures for the P-40F, courtesy of Joe Baugher, compared with the test of an early Typhoon Ib (November 1942) without the four-blade prop or late-model Sabre engine (and these are the SLOWEST Typhoon figures I can find!):
P-40F: "Maximum speed was 320 mph at 5000 feet, 340 mph at 10,000 feet, 352 mph at 15,000 feet, and 364 mph at 20,000 feet...." Loser!
Typhoon: "Max. true level speed in M.S. supercharger gear - 376 m.p.h. at 8,500 ft. Max. true level speed in F.S. supercharger gear - 394 m.p.h. at 20,200 ft...." Winner!
P-40F: "An altitude of 10,000 feet could be attained in 4.5 minutes...." (that's roughly 2200fpm) "….and an altitude of 20,000 feet could be reached in 11.6 minutes...." (1724fpm). Loser!
Typhoon: "Time to reach 15,000 ft. - 6.2 minutes...." (2419fpm) "….Time to reach 25,000 ft. - 12.4 minutes....." (2016fpm) Winner!
And that must have been a really bad day at Duxford for the Typhoon, as many other tests from around that date already had the Typhoon breaking the 400mph barrier. To try and put it in Americanised terms you might comprehend, the Typhoon was simply in a different class to the P-40F, like comparing a NASCAR to a Cadillac Eldorado. You can sing the praises of your Caddie as long as you like and boast about how many Honda Civics you managed to beat away from the lights, but it's still just an overweight pimpmobile compared to the Typhoon.
When you're done eating crow you can downvote again, it won't change the facts.
Shortround6
Major General
I will give you that, numbers varied from a high of 72 to a low considerably below that at times. The 33rd fighter group was supposed to reinforce the 57th in Egypt but got grabbed for Torch.
Demonstrating a utility isn't quite the same as fielding a new engine in a fighter with much enhanced altitude performance and yet using it for the same old tasks.
There was no " theoretically more advanced P-39 " in mid to late 1942. Most people involved with planning Torch and the subsequent campaigns should have already known that the P-39 was NOT a fighter in the NA/European theaters. It was having trouble with the Japanese fighters in New Guinea and the South Pacific. Or perhaps you were being sarcastic?
Well, if the Allison P-40 was intended to be a fighter bomber in mid 1942 they screwed up putting in the -81 and later engines. Losing almost 10% of your take-off power doesn't sound like good planning to me
Not to mention cutting the WEP rating from 60in to 57in. The -81 engines did improve performance at altitudes higher than around 5,000ft though. Fighter bomber for use in mountains? And here you have put your finger on one of the differences between the operational history/use of the P-40F and the Typhoon. The Typhoon only occasionally was used as an escort and for a good part of it's career it was the aircraft being escorted. Conditions and operations changed but for a good number of Typhoon missions if the German fighters got in gun range of the Typhoons the Spitfires had screwed up.
I would also note that trying to compare a stripped P-40F or L shows just how far off the P-40 was. Not six guns but four .50s with how much ammo? AHT shows 235 rounds per gun for an L. Typhoon is carrying 140 shells for each of it's four 20mm guns. Taking out the forward wing tank leaves you with about 20% more fuel than a Spitfire rather than the almost 60% more fuel you have with the forward tank. Typhoon has about 50% more internal fuel than the P-40L with two internal tanks. Yes the Typhoon is larger and heavier but with that forward tank missing the Typhoon, at most economical speed at 15,000ft has about 50-60 miles more range than the P-40L going just about the same speed.
I have repeatedly told all parties imvolved to knock it off with the snide insults. You continue to ignore me. Way to go. You got the thread temporarily closed, and you get a formal warning. It will be the only one. This is not a kindergarten.
What, more selective quotes? Why not consider WHAT YOUR OWN TEST PILOTS SAID. Please try not to cry into your Wheatos at section h, according to USAAF test pilots:
h. Maneuverability and Aerobatics
In general, handling during maneuvers and in aerobatics is very good. radius of turn is short, and the airplane rolls well....
Which completely destroys the unsupported male bovine manure you have been pushing about the Typhoon having either a poor turn or roll.
Shortround6
Major General
Falaise Gap? tanks destroyed?
Seven, maybe eight if we are generous
How many claimed? I think 132.
The Typhoons did stop the attack but by killing all kinds of trucks and accompanying vehicles, tank kills were extremely rare.
Shortround6
Major General
I would note on the subject of roll that any good ground attack plane has to roll pretty well as that is the way the plane is aimed. It has to be steady (no yawing, snaking or porpoising) and it has to respond well to the ailerons in order to correct onto the target, trying to shoot or bomb while in a skid is not going to be productive.
And someone continues to ignore me.
Good job, you get the thread shut down for a few days, and get an official warning.
Last edited:
On a second thought, I will not close the thread. The majority of people here are capable of debating like civil adults even if they have differing views.
This is not a kindergarten. No more warnings given.
This is not a kindergarten. No more warnings given.
- Thread starter
- #1,574
I think maybe the C/O was embedded with the British for a while.
No, what I'm saying is that the P-39 was still thought of in a lot of USAAF circles as the more modern aircraft than the P-40. Keeping mind the P-40 was a derivation of the P-36, whereas the P-39 was a brand new design with some radical new features, and comparatively very good streamlining. I believe they did not know that the P-39 was going to be a 'dud' in the Med though perhaps the possibility was starting to dawn on USAAF planners by the time of Torch (personally I don't think it was even a foregone conclusion, as I think part of the problem with the P-39 in that Theater was due to training and tactics). The reason the P-39 ended up in some major battles in the Pacific and why it was sent to the Med was because it was expected to be a good fighter.
As a more general point, I also don't think it was a broad assumption in 1942 that the Japanese fighters were pushovers (I don't think that myself today, but I know many here do). To the contrary, I believe a lot of people were still pretty scared of the Japanese War Machine at that point as it still looked pretty damn formidable. Also lets not forget the P-39 was doing well in Russia by late 1942, I don't know if the word got back to the US War Dept but I would assume it did. On the other hand bad experiences in the Pacific were also undoubtedly filtering back as well.
I believe hopes in US planning circles for the P-39 were probably fading leading up to Torch but established planning, which tends to have a certain amount of inertia in the military,. still had it as the better fighter in certain circles in the War Department. After all, it was faster and more heavily armed, and climbed better than the P-40. Newer hopes were being pinned on the P-38 to a greater degree of course, but they didn't know it would still be a few more subtypes in the queue before that fighter would reach it's full potential.
We can see all this stuff very clearly in hindsight but I don't think they knew everything at the time.
Well, if the Allison P-40 was intended to be a fighter bomber in mid 1942 they screwed up putting in the -81 and later engines. Losing almost 10% of your take-off power doesn't sound like good planning to me
Well, lets compare the other major fighter bomber in the Theater after the P-40 - the P-47. Unlike the Typhoon that it often gets compared to, it was designed as a high altitude fighter and it was primarily at high altitude where it performed best, at 30,000 feet right? And yet it was pressed into service as a fighter bomber, in several of the very same fighter groups that had been flying the P-40F. In that role I would guess the Typhoon was actually better since the P-47 wasn't ideal for flying around near sea-level. Yet that is what it often had to do.
As for the evolution of doctrine here, I don't have any memos to quote from Washington, my perception on this are based from reading unit histories like the 79th FG for which I have two books, and the 57th and 325th FG and so on. I get the impression they really didn't know precisely what kind of missions these aircraft, by which I mean all the American aircraft particularly the fighters, would be flying. This is why they had such an eclectic mix - P-38s, Spitfires, P-39s, P-40Fs and Ls, and P-40Ks, A-36s and Beaufighters - and that is just in the American forces.
The analogy in my mind, is I do martial arts and I can tell you, before a tournament, you really don't know what kind of fight you are going to be in. Opponents are randomized so you don't know who you will face. Or which part of your 'game' you are going to need. So it's good to be as well rounded as possible. Prepare for long and short distance, grappling and striking, for a quick encounter or for a long battle of attrition. You can sort of pre-load your best techniques, but you can't actually predict what is behind the event horizon. I find, somewhat superstitiously, it is bad luck to even think about what happens after a match. Let alone what happens after all the matches, after you get through your pools and if you will make it into the eliminations.
Anyway I just get the impression the USAAF people didn't know exactly what they were going to be getting into in North Africa. They certainly brought a lot of different tools into the mix, and they had some idea, but they were facing what was for most of them, new opponents in the Germans and Italians.
Well, it was the same with Hurricanes but they didn't start out that way. My theory is that with a fighter, the first few combats start to dictate how it will end up being used. No plan survives contact with the enemy.
The P-40L or stripped P-40F seemed to have limited range, but I guess that 20% made a difference. I believe they only did it when the air to air combat was intense, because you see a lot of these planes with the six guns in them too. How much fuel is needed even with the tanks in of course depends on the mission. Somehow they seem to have been flying P-40Ls on missions halfway across the Med. It's a bit of a mystery to me.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
There were 5 slightly different P-40Ls, You had the L-1 (short fuselage, 6 guns) of which 50 were built, the L-5 (220 built) which was the first "stripper" with the long fuselage (which all the rest of the Ls had) the L-10 (148 built) the L-15( 112 built) and the L-20 (170 built) All of the last four versions were "strippers", at least as built. What happened in the field might be a different story (forward tank added?/ an extra pair of guns fitted), some sources say only 201 or 203 rounds per gun. I don't know if they actually changed the ammo boxes or just loaded them with less ammo and a used a filler.
The Tuskegee AIrmen of the 99th Squadron/325th fighter group had the P-40L-1s with short fuselages, six guns and all three fuel tanks.
Of the 1302/1311 P-40F only the first 699 had short fuselages so confusion in photos might be somewhat common. The Ls were often used as replacement aircraft to units equipped with Fs.
Range figures I gave were for clean aircraft, obviously P-40s used the center drop tank quite a bit and extended their range that way.
- Thread starter
- #1,576
Of course. Internal fuel was definitely cut down though when they were lightened. Later on when the air to air combat diminished they configured them back in 'heavy' mode in some of the squadrons. You'll see quite a few P-40L with the 6 guns later on in Italy (including this one which they recently recovered from the sea).
The 99th moved from FG to FG, they started out with the 33rd, and there was some kind of controversy with the C/O Colonel Momyer* and they were almost sent home. Then they were with the 79th FG, and then the 324th.
I think they were given independent status some time in 1944.
* 33rd FG was under very heavy combat pressure around the time of Kasserine Pass which I think contributed to the problems.
The 99th moved from FG to FG, they started out with the 33rd, and there was some kind of controversy with the C/O Colonel Momyer* and they were almost sent home. Then they were with the 79th FG, and then the 324th.
I think they were given independent status some time in 1944.
* 33rd FG was under very heavy combat pressure around the time of Kasserine Pass which I think contributed to the problems.
Kevin J
Banned
My metric was 260 victories to 1100 fighter Typhoons produced, the other 2200 aren't counted, although I guess the 1100 combat losses could be assigned to the attack versions. So 50% loss rates? Well, not that bad, 75% could pretty much expect to get back after an attack.
Shortround6
Major General
I
I am not sure how you figured the the bolded part. The Typhoon did see a lot of lossed but they also flew a lot of missions.
from : Hawker Typhoon
Your sources may vary.
" Day and night the increasing number of Typhoon squadrons launched attacks on the German transport system in occupied France, becoming adept at destroying railway trains. This was a dangerous duty, operating at low level against defended targets, and 380 Typhoons were lost during 1943 (many to flak)"
and
"The main danger to the low flying Typhoons was posed by anti-aircraft fire, not enemy aircraft. Between D-Day and the end of the war in Europe some 500 Typhoons were lost in action. During this period the rocket armed Typhoons destroyed countless German tanks, firing just under 200,000 rockets in action. "
Which is 25,000 missions at eight rockets per mission for a loss rate of one airplane every 50 missions and we did not count any missions where the payload was bombs or where drop tanks were used and/or no underwing ordnance.
combat losses per number of planes built is a nearly useless metric as it leaves out the number of missions/sorties flown. It may tell you if a plane was heavily used or not (Brewster Buccaneer suffered few if any combat losses for instance) but it certainly doesn't give you any meaningful measure of a planes combat survivability.
Many Typhoons flew 3 and 4 combat missions per day in NW Europe after D-day.
It also doesn't take into account certain enemy actions.
Operation Bodenplatte " The eight Typhoon squadrons then based at Eindhoven lost nineteen aircraft destroyed and fourteen damaged, mostly on the ground."
Kevin J
Banned
Oops, I was being a little bit sarcastic, but from what I've read (or seen), a flight of four goes into attack. The first two get away with it, by the time the next two go in, if the AAA is on the ball, then one of them will be shot down or hit, whatever the case may be. So in any attack you should have a 75% chance of getting away with it. Also, the Typhoon squadrons were constantly looking for pilots in 1944 because of their heavy casualties. As for being a useless metric, to me, it does make more sense than the American ones, like the Corsair's 19:1 victory ratio, because then you ask yourself the question: what's happening to all those planes if it's so brilliant? It also gives a fresh perspective as to why the Hurricane and P-40 were kept in production for so long when they were supposedly obsolete. I really get tired of constantly reading on these forums that the Hurricane was obsolete in 1940 as clearly it wasn't.
Shortround6
Major General
Being obsolete depends on both your opponent and the mission you are doing.
Against the Germans and the 109E the MK I Hurricane was obsolete. The MK II might have kept it in the game a bit longer if the Germans hadn't introduced the 109F. Shuffled off to fight the Italians with their CR 42s, G-50s and MC200s it was not obsolete in that theater until the Italians developed better planes (got German engines) and the Germans showed up.
In the Far east it is certainly debatable if it was obsolete or if the crappy training and tactics doomed the Hurricane pilots. Bravery only takes you so far. Green pilots using crappy tactics are in a lot of trouble no matter what plane they are flying even when showing out of the ordinary courage.
Once the Hurricane switches to bomb carrier it has assumed a new role and has to be evaluated in that role, it is still obsolete as a fighter but is a whole lot more survivable than using Blenheim bombers to attack the same targets. Neither the Hurricane II or the Blenheim are much good against the FW 190 in a dog fight
I think you are confusing two things. the 19:1 ratio is false but it was supposed to be the kill to loss ratio. Obviously this can be changed/affected by inflated claims (and.or not counting certain losses?) but the basic way of counting/figuring it makes a certain amount of sense. Our plane shot down 75 enemy airplanes in air to air combat and we lost 25 in air to air combat so we have a 3:1 victory ratio. Number of missions is left out and operational losses are left out but one might assume that if the number of missions changes a lot but both "our" plane and the enemy planes stay at roughly the same performance the victory ratio will stay the same, even if the totals change.
You are right, it is often misapplied or figured out incorrectly.
Combat losses per number of planes built just has too many variables to actually tell you anything. Does combat include getting shot up/bombed while on the ground? It obviously includes losses due to ground fire, it may include mechanical failure (engine craps out over enemy territory and the plane goes missing/doesn't return to friendly base).
You might consider that an operational loss but unless you can access your opponents records all you know is the plane went MIA.
For bombers they tried to figure out the losses per sortie. send out 100 bombers and 95 come back or only 90? IF only 90 you may run out of bombers faster than you can build them (or train crews) But if you send out 500 bombers and only lose 15 in one night you are doing really good.
A few planes, like some Italian 5 series fighters might have a terrible loss to numbers built ratio, in part because they built so few, (MC 205 about 250-260 built?) and because they were bearing the brunt of the combat at the time. But unless you know the losses per number of missions flown or losses per number of times they actually met the enemy you don't know if the plane was doing any good (was worth the investment) or not.
for a metric to be useful it needs to have as few variable as possible (and it can still be wrong)
- Status
