Why was P-36 so successful in the battle of France?

[Glider]

109D at time of BoF was used only in night fighter unit, the 11/JG2 at Trondheim and the IV/JG2 at Hopsten.

I don't believe that to be the case. On the 6th November, 27 Bf109d's from I/ZG 2 led by Hpt Gentzen the Luftwaffe's top scoring pilot in the Polish campaign encountered nine Curtis H75A's of GC II/5. eight B109's were lost, four shot down and four written off in emergency landings with loss of four pilots, against the loss of one H75.
That evening Gentzen was ordered to Berlin to explain this result, a conversation I wouldn't fancy.

It should be noted that the German aircraft had the advantage of height and had the advantage of the sun.

 

[Vincenzo]

As i aware BoB was the time from the 10th may assault and on
before is called the Drole guerre/Sitzkrieg/Phoney War

 

[elbmc1969]

P-36 was the most successful aircraft in the battle of France,Outperforming even more modern Dewoitine d.520.
Why was this seemingly medicore plane performed so well in 1940?

As mentioned, speed, but also reliability and effective armament. And not actively trying to kill the pilot.

The MB.152 had engine overheating problems that were never fully solved. It had mostly cured the tendency of diving MB.150s and 151s to push into even-deeper dives until they crashed, but that was still a scary prospect. It also had somewhat heavy controls and was not amazingly agile. The wings were too flexible for the high recoil of the HS.404 and the pneumatic firing system had both a painfully long activation time and delays for each of the four guns to fire (0.5 seconds for the gun with the shortest pneumatic line, up to 2 seconds for the longest).

The MS.406 was significantly slower than the Hawk 75, but at least as agile: it was known as a real pilots airplane. However, they had been in services for a relatively long time, most were worn out, and spare parts were in ever-shorter supply, especially for the engines (Hispano-Suiza was devoting all of its effort to building engine for new aircraft). It also suffered from engine overheating problems, in its case because of a terrible radiator design that seriously reduced its top speed.

Both aircraft were handicapped by their armament. The wing-mounted MAC machine guns were drum-fed, which seriously limited their ammunition capacity. The HS.404 evolved into the famous Hispano-Suiza cannon that saw widespread service over many years, but in 1940 it was suffering serious teething issues. It was also drum-fed, but the exceptionally heavy rounds made spring design very difficult. You either had spring that was too strong when the magazine was full, or not strong enough when down to the last 10 rounds (out of 60). This led to many jams, which was more than frustrating because the Hispano-Suiza provided almost all of the firepower of the MS.406 and MB.152. Some units figured out that they could load just 50 or 55 rounds and largely eliminate jams, but that was a big reduction in carried firepower. The HS.404 also suffered from inconsistent manufacturing, design flaws, or both that cause wide variations in RoF among guns. Slow guns fired at about 2/3 the rpm of fast guns, and none met the design rpm, although the fastest guns came close.

The Hawk 75 was blessed with a reliable engine and adequate cooling.

The Hawk 75 was seriously handicapped by only carrying rifle-caliber MGs, but they were FN/Browning belt-fed guns (the famous .30 in 7.5mm), so they had plenty of ammunition. While the Spitfire was still under-armed with 8 rifle-caliber MGs, 2 of the Hawk's 6 were nose-mounted, which made them somewhat more effective, at the cost of RoF. The Hawk 75 could also take a .50 or 11.35mm machine gun in place of one of the nose guns. Variants were available that could mount 23mm Madsen or 20mm Oerlikon cannon in pods that replaced the wing guns, but these were very heavy and increased drag. The Thais ended up removing them because of the reduced performance of the aircraft. Wing racks for 100 lb. bombs were available, which was very handy, as well as a belly rack for a 500 lb. bomb, which was a ridiculous strike capability for a fighter at the time.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The MS.406 was significantly slower than the Hawk 75, but at least as agile: it was known as a real pilots airplane. However, they had been in services for a relatively long time, most were worn out

Good information but this was discussed in another thread. Where's your reference for "worn out." What specifically was "worn out"? Were the engines beyond TBO? Was the fabric bad? Were maintenance schedules exceeded? How many hours were on the airframes? This is a broad brush that I think has been over-used by many authors with no basis, just sayin.

 

[elbmc1969]

Good information but this was discussed in another thread. Where's your reference for "worn out." What specifically was "worn out"? Were the engines beyond TBO? Was the fabric bad? Were maintenance schedules exceeded? How many hours were on the airframes? This is a broad brush that I think has been over-used by many authors with no basis, just sayin.

Look, I'm know that you don't believe it, so I'm not going to argue about it. You can read a lot of documentation through the Bibliotheque Nationale de France portal if you want. I'm afraid the the maintenance logs for individual engines and aircraft haven't survived.

Short of that, read Baughen, which is based primarily on archival sources that are still no online.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Look, I'm know that you don't believe it, so I'm not going to argue about it. You can read a lot of documentation through the Bibliotheque Nationale de France portal if you want. I'm afraid the the maintenance logs for individual engines and aircraft haven't survived.

Short of that, read Baughen, which is based primarily on archival sources that are still no online.

And there's no argument, the fact is there seems to be no basis for this claim!!! I am aware of Greg Baughen and his research and would question this no matter where it came from.

I've seen pilots make claim that an aircraft was "worn out" because the seats were ripped!

 

[GreenKnight121]

The first production MS.406 was delivered 29 January 1939.
535 were delivered by 3 Sept. 1939, and 1,000 by the end of production in March 1940 1,000 had been delivered to the French Air Force.

So apparently they became "worn out" with less than one year of service... only 8 months of which were wartime flights.
From Sept 39 to May 40 those 500+ aircraft had flown around 5,000 missions... less than 10 missions each.

That's really a fast wear-out rate I think.

However, according to Gaston Botquin*, the MS.406 DID experience: a very high rate of engine wear, corrosion of rudder components, cabin glazing breaking under air pressure during certain maneuvers, loss of exterior panels due to screws deteriorating rapidly, etc.


* The Morane Saulnier 406. Leatherhead, Surrey, UK: Profile Publications Ltd., 1967.

 

[Nodeo-Franvier]

I don't believe that to be the case. On the 6th November, 27 Bf109d's from I/ZG 2 led by Hpt Gentzen the Luftwaffe's top scoring pilot in the Polish campaign encountered nine Curtis H75A's of GC II/5. eight B109's were lost, four shot down and four written off in emergency landings with loss of four pilots, against the loss of one H75.
That evening Gentzen was ordered to Berlin to explain this result, a conversation I wouldn't fancy.

It should be noted that the German aircraft had the advantage of height and had the advantage of the sun.

It's pretty strange that the German would give their best ace an older model.

 

[MIflyer]

It should be noted that the German aircraft had the advantage of height and had the advantage of the sun.

If a Hawk 75 can easily out turn a Spitfire it certainly can out turn a BF-109. To the 109 pilots it must have been like P-40's fighting a Oscar, except the Hawk 75 had enough punch to knock down a 109 pretty easily.

By the way, how much sabotage was there of French built aircraft? Until 1941 the Socialists in France opposed fighting the Nazis because they were friends with their idols, the Soviets. The invasion of Poland was in fact a joint invasion by Germany and the USSR. At least a Curtiss built airplane was going to be put together correctly.

You have to wonder how a P-400 would have done in the BofF. It had heavier armament than almost anything else, it was a low to medium altitude air war, and Erich Hartman described the P-39 as performing much like the 109.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The first production MS.406 was delivered 29 January 1939.
535 were delivered by 3 Sept. 1939, and 1,000 by the end of production in March 1940 1,000 had been delivered to the French Air Force.

So apparently they became "worn out" with less than one year of service... only 8 months of which were wartime flights.
From Sept 39 to May 40 those 500+ aircraft had flown around 5,000 missions... less than 10 missions each.

That's really a fast wear-out rate I think.

Until one can equate what was really "worn out," this, IMO is some author's enigma

However, according to Gaston Botquin*, the MS.406 DID experience: a very high rate of engine wear, corrosion of rudder components, cabin glazing breaking under air pressure during certain maneuvers, loss of exterior panels due to screws deteriorating rapidly, etc.


* The Morane Saulnier 406. Leatherhead, Surrey, UK: Profile Publications Ltd., 1967.

This breaks it down a little better

 

[Shortround6]

You have to wonder how a P-400 would have done in the BofF. It had heavier armament than almost anything else, it was a low to medium altitude air war, and Erich Hartman described the P-39 as performing much like the 109.

It wouldn't have worked at all, the cabin heater the British specified to get out of the contract totally ruined the P-39/P-40s performance.

A lot of US equipment in the BoF and the BoB is the subject of perfect "what ifs" in that the early US equipment often didn't work as advertised or as it would work in late 1941/1942.

It is a lot more than just having the US equipment show up on time. It is having it show up "perfect" working order. which things like the US .50 cal gun was not at the time.
They didn't work in the Aircobra I in the fall of 1941. They were not working in the Tomahawks in the Spring of 1941. They got them to work but for several months the only reliable armament in the Tomahawks were the four .303 wing guns. A P-39/P-400 in the BoF (assuming that that they made more than single digits those months) would probably be relying on four .303/7.5mgs in the wing.
Hartman was fighting P-39s that had later model engines.
Allison engine in production for most of 1940 was a 1090hp engine, the P-39C didn't roll out the factory floor until Jan 1941.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It wouldn't have worked at all, the cabin heater the British specified to get out of the contract totally ruined the P-39/P-40s performance.

 

[Shortround6]

The rate of attrition in war time conditions was rather high for many aircraft.

For the Hawk 75 the head of the French Air Mission in the US by Jan 8th 1940 was trying to buy 30 spare wing sets for the 200 Hawk 75s already delivered to France at that time.
He had tried to get wings being produced for the USAAC at the time. In Jan of 1940 about 30 Hawk 75s were grounded with damaged wings because spare parts were not available.
The French had ordered in terms of money, the equivalent of 50 airframes as spare parts with the initial orders. you don't get the same number of parts to build 50 airframes and they may well have ordered more of certain parts than others. French ability to get parts from where they were warehoused to the fields were the fighters were stationed may be subject to question?
This situation caused enough concern to the USAAC that they requested that the Military Intelligence Division look into the mater so that the USAAC could see if they were going to have a problem with the P-36 wings in service.

Very few wings had combat damage, damage due to high stresses caused by operation from wartime airdromes was not a direct cause of the order for wings. It was a high rate of landing accidents that was the major cause in conjunction with an insufficient order for spare parts.

Source Francis Dean and Dan Hagedorn book "Curtiss Fighter Aircraft".

Now if you ordered close to 25% spare parts and it was nowhere near enough (you need an extra 30 sets of wings in addition to the quantity already ordered) what is the rate of attrition?
And if a pilot wrecks a set of wings on his 2nd flight and another pilot wrecks a set on his 48th flight you have an average of 25 flights per set of wings.

Be careful of statistics.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I don't believe that to be the case. On the 6th November, 27 Bf109d's from I/ZG 2 led by Hpt Gentzen the Luftwaffe's top scoring pilot in the Polish campaign encountered nine Curtis H75A's of GC II/5. eight B109's were lost, four shot down and four written off in emergency landings with loss of four pilots, against the loss of one H75.
That evening Gentzen was ordered to Berlin to explain this result, a conversation I wouldn't fancy.

It should be noted that the German aircraft had the advantage of height and had the advantage of the sun.

Fascinating. Do you have a good source for this operational data?

 

[Nodeo-Franvier]

If Germany didn't invade Poland,Would P-36 be the USAF main fighter?

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I don't think so because for SS tanks, more armor etc., and above all higher speed, more power was needed. From what I understand, with those early radial engines it wasn't really possible without adding another bank of pistons or making the cylinders much larger, so that is why the focus was on liquid cooled engines for a while until the bigger 14 and 18 cylinder radials came online like the BMW 801, ASh-82, R-2600, and R-2800, Nakajima Homare 21 etc..

So the Hawk as such as already close to it's limit in development, even though it was under-armed, too slow, and not well enough protected. Hence the P-40.

The Spitfire was also a much better fighter in most respects, even though the Hawk was a bit more maneuverable. The Spitfire could still easily out-turn a 109 but was also 50-60 mph faster than a Hawk 75

 

[Shortround6]

If Germany didn't invade Poland,Would P-36 be the USAF main fighter?

No, The US had ordered over 500 P-40s on April 27th 1939.

This was 524 complete aircraft, and 36 aircraft as spare parts. Total 560.
Also included was a "skeleton" aircraft, a huge amount of documentation, like complete stress analysis and weight data, drawings, detailed parts list and parts catalogs and manuals/hand books.

 

[Glider]

Fascinating. Do you have a good source for this operational data?

The book Fledging Eagles by Christopher Shores

 

[MIflyer]

Very few wings had combat damage, damage due to high stresses caused by operation from wartime airdromes was not a direct cause of the order for wings. It was a high rate of landing accidents that was the major cause in conjunction with an insufficient order for spare parts.

Yeah, my first guess was "ground loops." P-40 was noted as requiring a lot of Right rudder.

 

[Zippythehog]

"I've seen pilots make claim that an aircraft was "worn out" because the seats were ripped!"

Off topic but my favorite sqwak to ground an airplane was, "Push-to-Talk" switch hurts my finger."