How would it have done?

P-40’s on the Eastern front….

As far as the debate over the P-40 verse ‘109 or 190 is concerned remember on the eastern front the P-40 & P-39 both were hard to handle by Luftwaffe fighters because all of the combat was at low level. The VVS was evidently very good at making the Luftwaffe fight down low.
It also amazes me that the F4F matched the Zero one for one in loss to kill ratio while the Spitfire V had a rough time of it against the Zero. I think IMHO one fighter attribute gets ignored alot, range. Range can be a force multiplier enabling you to stage out of more airbases or concentrate at some distant objective ,it also can allow you to be more persistent in combat.

Thank you, Mr. Mears….when’s the book coming out? Pics coming your way soon….and I also requested ‘America’s Hundred Thousand ‘ for Christmas…

Mark

While reading all this, I just realised that a genuine Corsair gun bay checking periscope was sitting next to my computer, made by C.Cowliss and Co of Newhaven, C.T it was used on board HMS Illustrious during the Pacific Campaign, must have been involved after many interesting actions, no, it won’t go on E-Bay.

The Corsair would have been a GREAT match up for the Fw-190 in my opinion. Both had stellar roll rates and gobs of power, but as the energy of the fight decreased through hard maneuvering, the F4U would most definitely have dominated the 190. Both are ” boom & zoom” type energy fighters as opposed to “turn & burn” maneuvering types like the Spitfire, etc.

The Bf-109 on the other hand would have been a trick for the F4U pilots to master. The 109 had excellent vertical maneuvering capability and big guns (like all German fighters), but as long as the F4U pilots maintained the same discipline used against the Zero, they could use their superior energy-retaining capability to stay above the fight. A 109 attacking from above would demand that the F4U immediately unload all of its potential energy in a dive, use its high-speed handling capability to distance itself from the 109 and bring itself back over the top in hopes the 109 would go for the climbing shot and stall out while hanging underneath. You’d have to be dropping in on the 109 at the same time the 109 was running out of energy to get a definite kill. If the F4U pilot wanted to turn with the 109, he would have only a few seconds of pure advantage using flaps to get inside the circle before his energy dropped below that of the 109, at which point the F4U would be forced to dive out again and repeat. As long as the F4U didn’t allow the fight to drop too close to the deck, he could use this method of “evade and reengage” at will to try and wear down the 109 pilot. In my opinion, favor would still fall to the experienced F4U pilot since he retains the ability to engage and disengage at will.

Few pilots would have traded their Spitfire for an F4U when going up against the 109 simply because the Spit and Corsair enjoy two different types of fighting style. The progression of the Spit and 109 designs were one of the great ongoing matches between “knife fighting” style fighter planes during WWII. Had the F4U actually been employed as a bona fide player in the European Theatre, it’s resulting “energy fighter” match with the Fw-190 would certainly have rivaled that of the 109/Spit scenario! I dare say the ultimate direction of Chance Vought’s design would probably have been dictated far more by requests from the British than by the US Navy as a result. It would have been a marvelous bout!

But then you have to remember that the Japanese and German use of fighter tactics was completely different, and therefore they chose aircraft that played to these tactics. The Germans had been very influenced by the fighting they had seen in Spain, where faster fighters could employ hit and run techniques to overpower slower but tighter turning adversaries. The Japanese didn’t think much of the 109, or its counterpart the Heinkel He112, because they favoured tightness of turn and agility above speed – the opposite to German thinking. They also preferred radial engines to liquid cooled units.

Zeroes in the BofB is an interesting scenario, but the Germans would have had to change tactics completely to get the best of them. They might have ended up being more vulnerable, harder to hit but easier to damage.

…And though a lot is made of range of the 109, it only had something like seven seconds worth of ammunition for the cannon, and thirty for the machine guns. Not a lot of point hanging around with the bombers once your ammo has gone.

charley iirc the japanese used to ridicule the 109 saying if the germans had zero’s they would have won the b.o.b the thought that the germans couldn’t reach all of britain seemed ridiculous to japanese pilots
paul

i’d like to differ on the opion that there was no fighter superior than the 1940 spit ‘hurri and 109e as the a6m2 that were sent to china at about the same time were more manoeurvable had longer range and better arnament and were faster than a p40c. the lack of self sealing tanks isn’t a problem in this time frame iirc as most aircraft didnt have till late in the b,o,b
paul

I was summarising what had been discussed in this thread and that’s why I didn’t bring the Zero up. So does that lead me to consider a nightmare scenario: Heinkels and Dorniers bombing Britain in summer 1940 escorted by hordes of licence-built Zeroes? Would I now be speaking German?

Agreed, the 190D and the 109K and the small numbers of the Ta152 were a match for Allied fighters, I would disagree about pilots though…. In the last phase of the war the majority of Luftwaffe pilots had very few hours..some as little as 10, mainly due to lack of fuel for training. There were of course a few ‘old hands’ who could match any enemy even flying the older versions of the 109/190………but continuous flying against huge odds, little rest due to bases being constantly attacked, and having to carry out orders from a High Command totally out of touch with reality can’t have done much for the concentration.!

Dave

Doghouse, now you’re speaking my language…..something I have mulled over time and again, how the Corsair would’ve done in Europe against the Nazi’s best…..My basic conclusion has been this….at or below 25,000 ft, the Corsair was equal to or better than anything the Allies could come up with (Mustang, Spitfire, P-38, P-47, whatever)…and THOSE were by then basically better than anything the Axis forces could come up with (except the 262 jet) so therefore it stands to reason that the Corsair would’ve faired fairly well against the Axis planes…now, granted, this is a GENERALITY, in some categories some planes may score better in performance than the F4U, in some they may come off WORSE than the Corsair, but all around I think it’s safe to say the Corsair would’ve held it’s own, ESPECIALLY in the case of the faster F4U-4…
Would LOVE to have Rob Mears 2 cents worth on this particular thread and see what he thinks also…
Don’t know about the P-38 question…

M

Corsair,

You don’t mention the Hawker Tempest in this scenario – shame because it was easily the highest performing Allied fighter aircraft in this theatre of operations. I don’t know how its performance matches up with the Corsair though, I’d be interested to hear opinions. Sounds like the F4U could have acquitted itself pretty well.

I’m also not sure about your assertion that allied fighters were superior to Axis ones at this stage in the war – from what I have heard, the FW190D was the equal of most aircraft, and the clincher was that by this stage in the war the German pilots who were left were very experienced and canny fliers, while the Allies had quite a few rookie reinforcements in their ranks.

Thoughts, opinions…

Some theories about Asian Spitfires

1) We obtained a lot of second hand spits which were past their use by dates as supplied so their performance was inadequate from the start and a lot of the new aircraft were of obsolescent marks when they arrived.

2) Certainly in the begining when used over Darwin etc the tactic was to climb to intercept the attacking aircraft at high altitude which because of inadequate warning meant that their advantages as an interceptor were compromised as they lacked tactical equality with the adversary.

3) Australia is a long way from the UK and the servicability rate on Spits wasn’t as good as it could have been

4) The pilots of the Spits were inexperianced or were transfered from the middle east or europe where the tatics were different and the foe flew aircraft with different performance qualities – japanese machines were typicially lightly armed and constructed but handled / dogfought very well

5) A Spit is a good aircraft but not as robust in a tough environment as some others and they were prone to wear and tear and maintaince issues perhaps more so than say the p40 which was a very rugged and tough aircraft

6) In later years US types such as P51, p40N,Corsair and P38 became available and were more suited to the environment.

7) Spitfires lacked the effective range of their contemporaries.

8) I have no facts but i suspect the RAAF didn’t support the Spitfire in the best possible way.

9) The Japanese pilots were certainly in the early years highly experianced and capable and there were large numbers of them.

The above is garnered from my extensive reading of various texts on the subject as well as listening to Bobby Gibbs and others who flew the various aircraft. There is no doubt they liked Spit but the limitations from an operational perspective were such in the asian context as opposed to the european deployment of the type as to negate any advantage in performance it may have had in ideal circumstances.

Doghouse, now you’re speaking my language…..something I have mulled over time and again, how the Corsair would’ve done in Europe against the Nazi’s best…..My basic conclusion has been this….at or below 25,000 ft, the Corsair was equal to or better than anything the Allies could come up with (Mustang, Spitfire, P-38, P-47, whatever)…and THOSE were by then basically better than anything the Axis forces could come up with (except the 262 jet) so therefore it stands to reason that the Corsair would’ve faired fairly well against the Axis planes…now, granted, this is a GENERALITY, in some categories some planes may score better in performance than the F4U, in some they may come off WORSE than the Corsair, but all around I think it’s safe to say the Corsair would’ve held it’s own, ESPECIALLY in the case of the faster F4U-4…
Would LOVE to have Rob Mears 2 cents worth on this particular thread and see what he thinks also…
Don’t know about the P-38 question…

M

Now that we are doing what if’s what about the Corsair over Europe say 1944?. and were there any attempts to put later editions of the merlin in a P-38? Just your thoughts on these two hypotheticals. 😎

Dr.John-

Could you speculate more as to why the Spitfire was a failure in the far east? I have attempted in the past to start a thread on why the Spitfire did not do well against Japanese types, but it never seems to have taken off….I would be most interested to hear your (or any other) reasoning…

Mark

Interesting posts/thread chaps

Can the pretentious crap – hypothetical discussions are a branch of serious historical endevour so feel free I say to propose anything you like – there is an interesting point here and it’s exploration is just as valid as anything else historically speaking.

As for P40s – Especially in PNG and the Pacific they fought extreamly well against stiff and well flown Japanese forces and did quite well. The test of any Air Force is the quality of the pilots and their tatics not always the quality of the aircraft – The Spitfire was a failure in Australia in relative terms because of many factors and it could well be argued that the P40 was better suited to the role – again was this because of the tactics , operational factors or other issues – who knows but is well worth the discussion.

The UK aviation industry clearly contributed to the sucess in the BoB and WW11 in general but one could hypothasise that more could have been achieved if it had developed and produced less diversity of types and concentrated more on key programs such as one or two fighter types (did the world really need the Defiant for example) and perhaps liscence production of advanced US types as well such as the P51. Others would say that the healthy diversity of types and designs led to better outcomes again a good debate to be had and it is Historically speaking important and relavent.

Dr John Parker

Being a PhD student in Strategic Studies myself, I find Malcolm’s use of his “education” inexcusable and holier then thou crap. Education is not an end all, I have been humbled by many junior NCO’s and embarrased many senior officers in my work with the military. I have never once used my education as an excuse to be harsh, rude or whatever. If you find the discussion repugnant do not partake in it. As for historical “rewriting” or “what ifs” in history, you are obviouslynot well versed in military historiography as this can be a valuable tool.

BTW a quick search of your name produces no published work….

Open your mind to possibilities, man….don’t close it. And you’re dealing with a BUNCH of historians in here, some who MIGHT shed some previously unseen LIGHT on history if you’re willing to let it in. I am an aviation historian myself, and several of the people in here have written books and articles about a GREAT NUMBER of WWII subjects…including myself!! (see the next Warbird Digest, Feb ’06)

Well if you are so keen on this pointless issue of rewriting history what about expanding on my suggestion that the RAF had never put Hurricanes or Spitfires into production and as a cost saving exercise licence built BF109s and reengined them with Merlins?

That has some historical truth, the Spanish did it in the 1950s. There’s a little mind opener for you, and for good measure throw in the hypothetical case that the British followed the German lead and only concentrated initially on radar for use in maritime situations. This would remove radar from the ensuing BoB scenario.

And while we are dancing down this sunlit flower bestrewn path let’s throw in the very real possibility that Edward VIII had not abdicated and his very strong pro-German leanings were allowed to influence the events of 1939 and 1940. I see Wallis Simpson as special envoy to Berlin.

The possibilities no matter how silly are endless – go to it.

I posted a thread on another forum once regarding a clash of titans if you will between the Iowa class Battleships of the United States and the Yamato class of Japan….the debate went on for months and some VERY interesting conclusions were reached, and we all had fun doing it. Had I just stuck to ‘facts’ and the ‘fact’ that the Yamato and the Iowa never came withing firing range of each other during WWII, the whole thread would’ve never even been submitted.

Open your mind to possibilities, man….don’t close it. And you’re dealing with a BUNCH of historians in here, some who MIGHT shed some previously unseen LIGHT on history if you’re willing to let it in. I am an aviation historian myself, and several of the people in here have written books and articles about a GREAT NUMBER of WWII subjects…including myself!! (see the next Warbird Digest, Feb ’06)

Mark Morris

I am not apologising for being harsh on this because I am a professional and well qualified historian MA, PH.D etc.

Well Bully for you.

I like these What-if questions and think they are quite legitimate in a forum like these. I have learnt a lot from them about what advances in technology made a difference in past conflicts. Reading this thread, I concluded that there was no fighter superior to the Hurricane, Spit and 109 in 1940 but the British plans were hampered by outdated armaments until the 20mm cannon was fitted to them. Also surprised me how US aircraft lagged behind Europeans until later versions of their planes entered services.

i’d like to differ on the opion that there was no fighter superior than the 1940 spit ‘hurri and 109e as the a6m2 that were sent to china at about the same time were more manoeurvable had longer range and better arnament and were faster than a p40c. the lack of self sealing tanks isn’t a problem in this time frame iirc as most aircraft didnt have till late in the b,o,b
paul

I like these What-if questions and think they are quite legitimate in a forum like these. I have learnt a lot from them about what advances in technology made a difference in past conflicts. Reading this thread, I concluded that there was no fighter superior to the Hurricane, Spit and 109 in 1940 but the British plans were hampered by outdated armaments until the 20mm cannon was fitted to them. Also surprised me how US aircraft lagged behind Europeans until later versions of their planes entered services.