P-40 Kills

It does seem that the P-40 was generally used more successfully by its home nation (USA) than the P-39 was.

True, But it’s war-saving service was more in Commonwealth use.

Anyone ever read much on the P-40 as opposed to the P-39 in U.S. service. What was it about the Warhawk series that seemingly made it so much more prevalent than the Airacobra?

The P-40 was avaliable for export sales prior to the US entry to W.W.II. – In part built for foreign sales.

The P-39 wasn’t quite as good as the P-40; IMHO, the difference, as stated before, being small, but on either side of the gulf between ‘adequate’ and ‘inadequate’.

The other difference was that the P-39 was a more complex aircraft systems wise, requiring more maintenance, and I think more support equipment, while the P-40 was a more robust and lower tech – better for secondary theatres like the Middle and Far East where conditions were tough and make-do a requirement.

Very general, but broadly correct, I think.

It does seem that the P-40 was generally used more successfully by its home nation (USA) than the P-39 was.

Anyone ever read much on the P-40 as opposed to the P-39 in U.S. service. What was it about the Warhawk series that seemingly made it so much more prevalent than the Airacobra? I know more P-40’s were built, but there seem to have been far more American P-40 groups than those that flew the P-39.

Well basically the P39 looked good on paper and in prototype form but by the time it had been modified after testing to achieve its production features (armament increases, supercharger mods etc.) its performance dropped markedly. Also it is worth remembering that it like the other late 30s US fighter designs were well behind the level of development in Europe.

The P40 found use in less competitive theatres as a fighter bomber while the P39 simply did not (the Russian ground strafers notwithstanding). Also its supercharger problems limited its use to low level and the US had plenty of P40s able to function in that role. The RAF undertook one mission with P39s in Europe in 1941 and promptly abandoned them – they were just not up to standards prevailing.

It took a major redevelopment – the P63 Kingcobra – to bring it up to standard but by then the US has P51s and P47s and did not need need the P63. The Russians and others used them but the P63 was a comparitively minor aircraft.

It does seem that the P-40 was generally used more successfully by its home nation (USA) than the P-39 was.

Anyone ever read much on the P-40 as opposed to the P-39 in U.S. service. What was it about the Warhawk series that seemingly made it so much more prevalent than the Airacobra? I know more P-40’s were built, but there seem to have been far more American P-40 groups than those that flew the P-39.

My point of all of this is that it is funny how the P-40 and P-39 are judged poorly because of high-altitude performance, while the MiG-3 is judged poorly because of low-altitude performance.

I would not agree that the P39 was judged purely on its altitude problems,there were a ‘few’ other issues with the a/c as well.

Cockpit entry/exit poor,especially with chute on
Poor all round vision
Cockpit fairly cramped (I believe that the canopy size was reduced to try and reduce drag [prewar by USAAF ?])
I have read a few autobios by various pilots as regards the ‘tumbling’ issue and my opinion is that it could happen – especially after the guns were fired,using ammo from the nose area simply put the c of g further back – quite a few WW2 a/c were extremely sensitive about C of G position but most used ammo from near the C of G Datum so not a problem.
Tex Johnston was a test pilot for Bell a/c and he reckoned the P39 did not tumble however the a/c used for the tumbling trial were correctly ballasted for C of G position !!

cheers baz

That’s a good point.

At low altitudes, the P-40 (and P-39) were actually very competitive against their primary foes (namely the Bf-109 and A6M/Ki-43), and in the Eastern Front, this is often where the fighting took place.

It’s actually somewhat intriguing….if you look at how the P-40 (and P-39 are judged, they are often written off for their poor high-altitude performance as in many theaters, the battles often took place higher up. The reverse was true in the Eastern Front, where everything took place at low-altitudes.

The MiG-3, by contrast is often looked on as only a mediocre fighter because while very effective a high altitude, it was an underachiever at low-altitude. Thus, the Eastern Front war wasn’t as suitable for the MiG-3 as it was for many of its Soviet stablemates.

Was it a bad fighter? I don’t think so. I believe the top-scoring Soviet ace scored many of his kills with it. It was very fast (for 1941 easily one of the faster planes out there), and it had a very high ceiling. In fact it was the only Soviet fighter able to challenge the Bf-109 (or Fw-190) above about 15 to 20,000 feet in the early to middle years of the war.

My point of all of this is that it is funny how the P-40 and P-39 are judged poorly because of high-altitude performance, while the MiG-3 is judged poorly because of low-altitude performance.

There’s no mention of the Russians lightening their P-39s, other than removing the unwanted underwing gondolas on later deliveries. They simply used the aircraft at lowlevel (unlike the RAF wishes) where it was competitive, and did not have to fight against highly agile opponents (as in the Pacific).

There is an account from the fighting in Italy where one batch of 109s tried staying at lowlevel to dogfight USAAF P-39s, and they came off worst.

One man’s junk is another man’s treasure.

The Soviet air force had much more success with the Bell Airacobra, as did the Finnish air force with the Brewster Buffalo. The Eastern Europeans used these airplanes for a longer period than the Western Allies and both types were competitive once the pilots figured out the best tactics.

The Finns used a stripped down version of the F-2A and this was one of the keys to their success. The lower weight greatly increased the performance of the Buffalo.

The American Volunteer Group (Flying Tigers) removed certain nonessential equipment from some of their P-40s to reduce weight, after which these aircraft climbed “like a rocket” compared to the unmodified Tomahawks. Perhaps the Russians did the same with the P-39.

Interesting series of replies. I’m glad to see there are some others out there who feel the P-40 has gotten the wrong-end of many “history” recollections.

I feel the P-39 has also been rather poorly treated though it does seem that its home nation, the United States was able to use the P-40 with a bit more success.

Did the USAAF have that many more P-40’s than P-39’s during the war?

A good P39 book is ‘Nanette’ by Edwards Park,he flew them on ‘ops’,his sqn flew a mixture of P39’s and P400’s (export version)

cheers baz

Interesting series of replies. I’m glad to see there are some others out there who feel the P-40 has gotten the wrong-end of many “history” recollections.

I feel the P-39 has also been rather poorly treated though it does seem that its home nation, the United States was able to use the P-40 with a bit more success.

Did the USAAF have that many more P-40’s than P-39’s during the war?

Been lurking in this forum for awhile but never posted a message until now. A few points. The British asked for and got refinements that added almost 1,000 lbs. of extra weight to the Curtiss Tomahawk II (P-40B & C), which did not exactly improve speed or rate of climb.

The Messerschmitt 109 could outrace and outclimb the P-40, yet the 109 did not turn very well for such a small airplane. Luftwaffe fighter pilots who fought in the desert and Italy noted that the P-40 could make tighter turns than their own 109s. The Messerschmitt was not easy to fly either, and took a long time to master. Only the most experienced German pilots were able to extract the maximum maneuvering capabilities.

But it was pilot training that decided more battles than small differences in the airplanes. The Germans then held advantages over the RAF mainly because the Luftwaffe tactics were superior (the so-called “Finger Four” developed by the Germans was gradually copied by RAF Fighter Command).

The Germans favored sections of four fighters abreast, slightly staggered and loose, which was more flexible and mutally supporting than the extremely rigid “Fighting Area Tactics” used by the RAF. The Brits deployed sections of three fighters in tight, “V” formations, four of which formed another tight “V”. This arrangement looked nice over a parade ground, but it was easy to ambush in combat. Only the squadron leader on point was free to act as a lookout, while the other pilots had to focus on keeping station. The RAF tried to fix this defect by adding a “weaver” as an extra set of eyes but this guy was a sitting duck and often picked off.

Eventually the RAF gave up on the “Vics” and most of their squadrons flew in loose sets of four planes like the Germans.

Just my 2p…

Surely the criteria for comparing any fighter type is the same?

Could be Daz

just off the top of my head some criteria might be…

Speed
Manoeverability
rearward visibility
visibility over the nose
ease of handling (ie how many nasty habits)
ease of maintenance
range/duration
landing characteristics
gun platform stability
weight/rate of fire (weapons)
ability to sustain and survive battle damage
self sealing fuel tanks

and of course..very important…Is it your favourite a/c ??:D:diablo:

regards baz

P.S I am sure there are lots more to consider !!

Hi Dave
I would also to a certain extent disagree with James on comparing types…it depends on the criteria you use !!

Just my 2p…

Surely the criteria for comparing any fighter type is the same?

of course, it’s all about sharkmouths, really. 😀

Cheers,

Absolutely James !! :D:D
My favourite when i built models as a space cadet !! :D:D

cheers baz

Yes in my original post I did say that a I thought lot of the P40 success was down to the skill and tenacity of its pilots,the Japs of course had similar problems to the luftwaffe in that as the war progressed the quality and experience of its pilots diminished whereas on the allied side things were rather different.

Sure. And I’d put your comment regarding the Hellcat vs the Corsair alongside – the P-40 was clearly a very robust straightforward to fly and fight and maintain type – better than some other contemporaries (the P-38, while a fine fighter was definitely poor on the maintenance hours/sortie ratio).

At the end of the day, the pilot’s ‘fighter’ attitude counted for a lot in specific combats – but strategically, W.W.II was won on a quantitative basis, the quality of Allied training and equipment, while important, wasn’t as decisive as the volume of Allied power.

Of course, it’s all about sharkmouths, really. 😀

Cheers,

Hi James
Yes in my original post I did say that a I thought lot of the P40 success was down to the skill and tenacity of its pilots,the Japs of course had similar problems to the luftwaffe in that as the war progressed the quality and experience of its pilots diminished whereas on the allied side things were rather different.

regards baz

Are you saying that anyone could hop into a Hellcat or Focke Wulf 190 and become an ace overnight because of the aircraft’s design made it so easy?

James is also correct that comparing type for type as better or worse is silly. But one thing I will say is the Merlin sounds better than an Allison or any radial, no matter what it’s attached to, and few can argue that.

Hi Dave
It is all relative really…I would say that Hellcats were a lot easier to fly than Corsairs and killed far fewer inexperienced pilots,I would also to a certain extent disagree with James on comparing types…it depends on the criteria you use !!Like all of us on here I merely state my opinion but I certainly do not have any axes to grind,I have been an aircraft engineer for 36 years,have read many pilots autobiographies and used to be a very active glider pilot (400hrs) so perhaps have a different slant to my posts than some forum members.

regards baz

Fair enough Baz, but it’s still a relative irrelevance. Why? The P-40 had an excellent record as a close support aircraft for more forces than just the RAF in the Med and Far East, and a creditable record as an air superiority fighter in both and with the AVG. The AVG were an often over-promoted group, but relevant here as they used their aircraft to maximum effect and minimised the enemy’s advantages. As I said earlier, the slightly worse performing P-39 falls below the ‘adequacy’ test (unlike the P-40) because the P-39 achieved none of those results – being at best a marginal air superiority fighter in the Far East.

It’s just as irrelevant to say the Spitfire was a second rate fighter because of its short range and pitifully narrow undercarriage – that’s true, but hardly recognises how little those factors mattered in the overall achievement of the pilots flying Spitfires.

As I said Ray (and incidentally Mark) Hanna rated the P-40 highly. (Not, of course, the only opinion to rate, and not a combat or test one, but interesting nonetheless.) Most pilots with multiple type experience and an ability to make qualified judgements noted that the P-40 lacked the top end performance, but was a very good aircraft. As Dave picked up earlier, most of the disparagement of the type is a postwar invention developed by those that can only ‘rate’ the ‘best’ fighters of the war – even though those all arrived after the turning points had gone.

Regards,

[B]but to berate it in the air-to-ground role? It seems you should do some P-40 research my friend. You will learn a lot about an airplane that it seems you know little about.

If you read my post carefully my friend you would see that I did not ‘berate’ it as a GA a/c,the RAF used it successfully in that role,I merely said that a liquid cooled engine is more vulnerable to enemy fire than a radial.
The P51 was even more vulnerable because of its belly radiator,I am not saying the P40 was a nasty a/c,I am not aware of any major handling problems etc,but a pilot would usually use a ‘qualified’ statement to compare one a/c type with another.If you flew your first tour on a P40 you would have no other operational type to compare it to,same with the car you drive,one always compares with a previous car.

regards baz

I dont think that any of the P40 series were that good as fighters !!
They were tough and could take a lot of combat damage but their achilles heel in the ground attack role would have been the engine cooling system…very vulnerable to ground fire etc (cant beat a big radial ).
As previous posters have said…if they were effective combat a/c then a large part of this would be down to the skill and tenacity of the pilots.
Same goes for the P39 really,it was even worse !!

What surprises me about that reply (and in turn lets me know that you don’t know much about the P-40), are your comments regarding the P-40 in the ground-attack role. The best aspect of the P-40’s career in WWII was its air-to-ground (i.e. fighter-bomber) capabilities.

By contrast to its mixed reviews as a fighter by many, very few doubt its capabilities as a fighter-bomber. It was very well known as being very rugged and able to withstand combat damage unlike many of its inline-engined contemporaries (including even later war designs such as the P-51).

Sure, the P-40 had an inline engine, but it was considered incredibly durable by just about every operator that flew it. If you want to criticize it for its air-to-air capability (and I’ll debate you on that as I enjoy that particular debate), then I can somewhat understand that as many have made remarks on its alleged poor air-to-air capability in the past, but to berate it in the air-to-ground role? It seems you should do some P-40 research my friend. You will learn a lot about an airplane that it seems you know little about.

I am not into schoolboy ‘better than’ arguments,I tried a longish reply earlier but my work computer system would not allow it to post.
Not sure what some people here are after…I agreed that the pilots/tactics were the real winners here,the desert air force autobios I have read make it quite clear that 109’s gave P40’s a hard time.
Jap armour/tactics were not that good once understood and their pilots also ended up with inferior machines 1943 on.

cheers baz