Which is the better fighter, P-40F or Typhoon? (4 Viewers)

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Ask yourself honestly, if the Typhoon had scored more victory claims than the P-40F in the same time period, would that have been noted in this thread? Perhaps heavily emphasized?

See post above...

[sarcasm]Again using your logic the Bf 109 is the bestest aircraft ever as it shot down everything, and the mostest.[/sarcasm]

 

[pbehn]

Some victories are much more significant than others, once one spitfire shot at and damaged one Ju 86 at 41,000ft over south England no more high altitude raids were tried. Fw190 Jabo raids were a problem affecting industry and life all over the south of England, however it doesn't take the loss of many pilots and planes to make the dropping of a small bomb not worth the losses on what were nuisance raids. A P-38 shooting down a Mitsubishi GM4 isn't a fantastic achievement, when it has Admiral Yamamoto on board it is viewed differently.

 

[Schweik]

No that is exactly what you are doing.

What were the mission perameters? What were the squadron orders? What were the enemy aircraft's orders. How many aircraft were contacted. What type of aircraft were contacted, and what was it's mission perameter during contact? Was the aircraft ordered to carry out ground attack, while another fighter type was ordered for air superiority top cover?

resp:

1. You seem to be suggesting that Operational History is inadmissible or irrelevant when comparing two types of WW2 fighter planes. Obviously there are limits to it's relevance but I think you are overstating your case. There are dozens if not hundreds of threads on this forum where Operational History IS used as at least one criteria for comparing two fighters. It's part of the story isn't it?
2. Someone in this thread already mentioned that they have the Operational History of the Typhoon. We can get a lot closer to matching the details. I don't have it.

Loss statistics mean nothing except that a particular aircraft was killed on a particular date.

You are being overly simple and black and white in your very agenda biased research, which is onviously only telling you what you want to hear to begin with.

I really don't appreciate that. I do not conduct "agenda biased research". I can see that very few appreciate the time I have spent researching, transcribing, finding images etc and writing posts here, that message is received and very clear. But all I have done is look at new data that has emerged, and present it to the forum. I don't have my thumb on the scale and all my cards are on the table. I posted all of my sources. I already mentioned this in another post in this thread or some other one, but I'd like to remind everybody that new data is still emerging about WW2 air combat. I thought some people would be interested in all this stuff from Shores MAW. Clearly not (with a few exceptions). But if all these discussions were already settled we would have very little to discuss on forums like this at all would we?

You speculated freely on my "agenda" so I'll speculate on that of some of the people making the most vehement posts on here - I think it's just a matter of being presented with something they thought they already knew about and owned. Somebody argues a different interpretation and they get emotional and dig their heels in. This happens in Academia all the time. What I have seen so far are a host of reasons why people believe the Typhoon is better. and the specs make it look better, but the actual Operational data shows something different. Not just data I posted either.

This is definitely my last thread on the P-40. I generally enjoy discussing aviation but I'm really sick of being insulted or accused of being dishonest. I will continue to defend my posts here until I'm banned or whatever. Assuming I am not, the next thread I start will be about different aircraft.

I think there is a Catch 22 at work here. If you post something that offends the status quo and get pat responses that ignore reality, and then let it lie, you look like you just posted nonsense. But if you defend the points you made, correct errors and present data to support it, you get accused of having a bias for a particular position (or being a Nationalist bigot or a liar etc.), so it gets to the point that you have to move on to something else. I have a lot more interests in WW2 Aviation than just one plane. I just noticed that the popular narrative about this particular story seems to be at odds with the data. It's hardly the only one or the only case like that though.

 

[Schweik]

Some victories are much more significant than others, once one spitfire shot at and damaged one Ju 86 at 41,000ft over south England no more high altitude raids were tried. Fw190 Jabo raids were a problem affecting industry and life all over the south of England, however it doesn't take the loss of many pilots and planes to make the dropping of a small bomb not worth the losses on what were nuisance raids. A P-38 shooting down a Mitsubishi GM4 isn't a fantastic achievement, when it has Admiral Yamamoto on board it is viewed differently.

I don't disagree with that and I've pointed out repeatedly that the value of the Typhoon victories over Fw 190 (especially in 1942) and V-1s in particular were of extra merit. See the last couple of paragraphs of post 634 as one of many examples. I don't think I've been unfair here.

 

[michael rauls]

I think it was already clear, but you keep posting reports of victories of P-40Fs in air-to-air and don't ever consider the disadvantage that the Typhoon had in that role - ie, it wasn't used for that long in that role, in small numbers and with little enemy contact.

I think it was established that there were about 30 squadrons that operated the Typhoon. IIRC there were 12 aircraft in a squadron, which would make it 360 in service. Assuming they were serviceable.

Even if it was 20 to a squadron, that is still only 600. Compared to 2,000 P-40Fs and Ls made (obviously not all were operational).

The majority of Typhoon squadrons operated in roles other than air superiority. In fact, it appears only two squadrons operated as pure fighter squadrons, and only for 9 months.

There is much more to the story of aerial victory counts than how good the aircraft was. If you seldom met the enemy in combat, you aren't going to run up huge victory numbers.

In my humble opinion its the comparative ratio of air to air victories to losses that is pertinent not the raw numbers.

 

[Shortround6]

1. You seem to be suggesting that Operational History is inadmissible or irrelevant when comparing two types of WW2 fighter planes. Obviously there are limits to it's relevance but I think you are overstating your case. There are dozens if not hundreds of threads on this forum where Operational History IS used as at least one criteria for comparing two fighters. It's part of the story isn't it?

This happens in Academia all the time. What I have seen so far are a host of reasons why people believe the Typhoon is better. and the specs make it look better, but the actual Operational data shows something different. Not just data I posted either.


I think there is a Catch 22 at work here. If you post something that offends the status quo and get pat responses that ignore reality, and then let it lie, you look like you just posted nonsense.

Please look at the chart in post #581.

Same Group (No 83) operating as part of the 2nd tactical air force operating in the same area, at the same time. 10 squadrons of Typhoons in over 11,000 sorties claim one German aircraft damaged. Either the Typhoon is the worst fighter of all time or the Spitfires and Mustangs were so good that the Typhoons never saw German fighters?
Or compare the Mustang IIIs to the Mustang Is. The Allison powered MK Is have an astronomical lower loss rate than the Merlin powered ones, but then they weren't flying the same missions even if flying in the same area at the same time.

The basic methodology of comparing planes shot down by similar numbers of planes deployed while interesting, is obviously flawed.
We need a lot deeper "Operational data" to draw any remotely valid conclusions. Even such simple stuff as the distances operating form base can affect the number losses vs the number of damaged planes that made it home. Just saying that both types operated over water (at times) doesn't quite cut it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Please look at the chart in post #581.

Same Group (No 83) operating as part of the 2nd tactical air force operating in the same area, at the same time. 10 squadrons of Typhoons in over 11,000 sorties claim one German aircraft damaged. Either the Typhoon is the worst fighter of all time or the Spitfires and Mustangs were so good that the Typhoons never saw German fighters?
Or compare the Mustang IIIs to the Mustang Is. The Allison powered MK Is have an astronomical lower loss rate than the Merlin powered ones, but then they weren't flying the same missions even if flying in the same area at the same time.

The basic methodology of comparing planes shot down by similar numbers of planes deployed while interesting, is obviously flawed.
We need a lot deeper "Operational data" to draw any remotely valid conclusions. Even such simple stuff as the distances operating form base can affect the number losses vs the number of damaged planes that made it home. Just saying that both types operated over water (at times) doesn't quite cut it.

Said better than I could, but that is essentially what I am getting at. There are so many variables involved. Just looking at kills and losses only paints a small picture of it, and it is naive to think one can make conclusions from it.

 

[Schweik]

Obviously you get a much clearer picture of the merits of each fighter the more precise your operational history is. But to start with you have to have the basic data which is what I've been trying to provide on the P-40 side.

Also I don't I think it's maybe clear that I have not made any definitive statements. I just pointed out some of the trends you can already see in the data. I agree it does not conclusively prove anything.

As for what Shortround was saying you can also see that in the P-40 history summaries, for example the 27th fighter bomber group has no claims because it was operating when there were fewer Axis aircraft around anymore, the pilots probably weren't trained as fighter pilots, and it was flying almost exclusively bomber missions.

Similarly the 324th has a much worse record than the 325th (less than half as many clains) essentially just because of the missions it was flying were more bomber oriented and maybe something to do with the leadership. But I think they both got the same kind of training and had the same planes.

However I don't think the statistics Shortround posted prove anything definitively either. It just shows you part of the story from a late period for I think one Wing right?

In other words I get it there were periods where Fighters didn't have planes to shoot down. I have expressed doubts that the target environment was that barren for the entire Operationsl History of the Typhoon and all 30 squadrons or however many were actually operational. But that is just a guess.

At this point I have access to data (and I think one or two other people here do as well) that can tell us a lot of detail about the operational history of at least 2 P-40F Fighter Groups, 79th and 325th. I have a book somewhere on the 57th Fighter Group as well I think, plus MAW III and IV

We could compare those with the operational history of the Typhoon for a few months, which I remember somebody here mentioned that they have.

Then it's just a matter of how fine of a point you want to put on it. You can still always point out reasons why you can't compare them but pilots, generals, enemies did compare on the basis of operations.

I also think that we as a group here would be putting more emphasis on the victory claims if the ratio was reverse of what it was.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Obviously you get a much clearer picture of the merits of each fighter the more precise your operational history is. But to start with you have to have the basic data which is what I've been trying to provide on the P-40 side.

Also I don't I think it's maybe clear that I have not made any definitive statements. I just pointed out some of the trends you can already see in the data. I agree it does not conclusively prove anything.

As for what Shortround was saying you can also see that in the P-40 history summaries, for example the 27th fighter bomber group has no claims because it was operating when there were fewer Axis aircraft around anymore, the pilots probably weren't trained as fighter pilots, and it was flying almost exclusively bomber missions.

Similarly the 324th has a much worse record than the 325th (less than half as many clains) essentially just because of the missions it was flying were more bomber oriented and maybe something to do with the leadership. But I think they both got the same kind of training and had the same planes.

However I don't think the statistics Shortround posted prove anything definitively either. It just shows you part of the story from a late period for I think one Wing right?

In other words I get it there were periods where Fighters didn't have planes to shoot down. I have expressed doubts that the target environment was that barren for the entire Operationsl History of the Typhoon and all 30 squadrons or however many were actually operational. But that is just a guess.

At this point I have access to data (and I think one or two other people here do as well) that can tell us a lot of detail about the operational history of at least 2 P-40F Fighter Groups, 79th and 325th. I have a book somewhere on the 57th Fighter Group as well I think, plus MAW III and IV

We could compare those with the operational history of the Typhoon for a few months, which I remember somebody here mentioned that they have.

Then it's just a matter of how fine of a point you want to put on it. You can still always point out reasons why you can't compare them but pilots, generals, enemies did compare on the basis of operations.

I also think that we as a group here would be putting more emphasis on the victory claims if the ratio was reverse of what it was.

I highly doubt it...

 

[Schweik]

At some point everything you say today about World War II is an educated guess as we weren't there

 

[wuzak]

In other words I get it there were periods where Fighters didn't have planes to shoot down. I have expressed doubts that the target environment was that barren for the entire Operationsl History of the Typhoon and all 30 squadrons or however many were actually operational. But that is just a guess.

In the case of the Typhoon, those periods were significant.

And for the majority of time, the Typhoon did not operate as a fighter.

 

[Schweik]

I get that. But there were a couple of squadrons operating as fighters for 9 months, and some others flying 'mixed' mission profiles right?

I think we really need to dive into the Typhoon Operational History now but I don't have those books available. I guess I could order one...

 

[Clayton Magnet]

Theoretically substitute the Typhoon in place of the P-40F.
Do the victory claims and successes in the Med go up or down? The Typhoon has the performance and load carrying advantage over the P-40F, so when put in the same circumstances, should it not perform better? I assume it would have
Conversely, if the P-40F had taken over the Typhoon's role in Northern Europe, what would have been the result?

 

[Glider]

Conversely, if the P-40F had taken over the Typhoon's role in Northern Europe, what would have been the result?

Carnage

 

[Schweik]

Theoretically substitute the Typhoon in place of the P-40F.
Do the victory claims and successes in the Med go up or down? The Typhoon has the performance and load carrying advantage over the P-40F, so when put in the same circumstances, should it not perform better? I assume it would have
Conversely, if the P-40F had taken over the Typhoon's role in Northern Europe, what would have been the result?

Good question. They had all those Typhoons sitting there in England and if they really weren't doing much, I don't know why they didn't send some to the Med. There was certainly a need for more fighters. Somebody mentioned they did send 2 or 3 for some kind of testing, I'd love to hear how it went. Maybe issues with the engine? How good were Typhoons against Bf 109s? That would be the main question. And MC 202 / 205s...

As for how the P-40 would have fared in England, well the same question holds. They had basically ruled out P-40's for Northwest Europe around 1941 due to altitude limitations but in the low-altitude role the Typhoon was used for I don't see why they wouldn't have done at least as well.

They used early P-40 / Tomahawks in an interdiction / recon mode for a little while from England, I don't doubt a P-40F or L would do better than a Tomahawk, I or II in the same job. They replaced them basically with P-51As , which did well, reportedly. P-40F/L shared airspace with A-36s in the Med which were very similar aircraft... and P-40F had a lot better service record in the Med than the A-36.

 

[Schweik]

Carnage

Indeed, to the Germans. If JG 27 couldn't handle them how could those back bencher Western front guys have held up?

 

[Glider]

Indeed, to the Germans. If JG 27 couldn't handle them how could those back bencher Western front guys have held up?

Once again priceless

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Why did we build any other aircraft? The P-40 won the war by itself!

 

[Schweik]

Nah the Yak 1 / 7/ 9 did that. Lets keep in mind, 1943 until June 1944, the Germans had 70% of their men and their gear on the Russian Front. Even after D-Day I think it was still ~60%

 

[Schweik]

Once again priceless

Yeah you are right, there is some kind of magic dust in the air around the English Channel and Belgium which makes the same exact Bf 109s flown by the same Luftwaffe pilots who were dueling with 325th and 57th FG et all over Sardinia, Italy Yugoslavia and the South of France suddenly get ten times as fast, their turning circle shrinks to half the size, climb rate doubles, dive mach number rises to 2.6, their MG 151 doubled it's rate of fire and they carried three times as many shells with no weight gain, and their gunsights became gyroscopic.

If they shipped them back down to Italy or the Crimea of course everything went back to normal, and their outer wings were filled with sand..