The P40 thread

[Finkeren 5783]

If it means anything, the RAF gave serious consideration to replacing all it's Hurricanes with P40s.

That's more an indication of just how obsolete the Hurricane was. The Hurricane had a couple of things going for it, most of all its low wingloading and pleasant handling. Still the airframe was simply not built to be a high performing modern fighter, and even the P-40E (which isn't really known for having stellar performance) achieved a topspeed some 50km/h faster with a similar powerloading.

[I./ZG15_robtek 153]

in il2-1946 i felt invincible in a p-40.

 

But so i did in a 109F4.

[ACEOFACES 178]

That's more an indication of just how obsolete the Hurricane was.

 

Lets assume that is the case... That does not speak well of the Bf109 does it? To be bested by an obsolete plane.. An analysis that is based on the assumption that there were more Hurris than Spitfires used during the Battle of Britain.. An assumption that I think is accurate. 

[II./JG77_Manu* 875]

To be bested by an obsolete plane

? 

Edited February 17, 2015 by Celestiale

[StG77_Kondorsky 325]

That's more an indication of just how obsolete the Hurricane was. The Hurricane had a couple of things going for it, most of all its low wingloading and pleasant handling. Still the airframe was simply not built to be a high performing modern fighter, and even the P-40E (which isn't really known for having stellar performance) achieved a topspeed some 50km/h faster with a similar powerloading.

 

He was talking about CFS 1 Hurricanes

[pilotpierre 692]

Lets assume that is the case... That does not speak well of the Bf109 does it? To be bested by an obsolete plane.. An analysis that is based on the assumption that there were more Hurris than Spitfires used during the Battle of Britain.. An assumption that I think is accurate.

 

True, but generally the hurricanes were tasked with attacking the bombers while the spitfires were tasked with the fighters.

[ACEOFACES 178]

Someone posted some numbers once, and, I think it was around the CloD time frame, and the number of Hurries far out weight the number of Spitfires..

 

So, assuming that was the case, if there were Spits aval, than yes they typically preformed escort duties.. But they were not always available in numbers, thus a the majority of Germans planes shot down during BoB were shot down by Hurries, be them jerry bombers or fighters

? 

 

What part are you have trouble with Celestiale?

 

It's simple, either way you look at it, it is a LOOSE LOOSE for the 109

 

Assuming my assumption of Hurries far out numbering the number of Spitifires during BoB

 

• Point of View No. 1 - Most of the 109s shot down were shot down by Hurries, which some say was an obsolete plane at the time of BoB.
• Point of View No. 2 - Most of the 109s shot down were shot down by Spitfires, yet there were very few Spitfires aval at the time of BoB (relatively speaking) thus the Spit kill ratio must have been very high.

 

Hope that helps!

Edited February 17, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[II./JG77_Manu* 875]

Someone posted some numbers once, and, I think it was around the CloD time frame, and the number of Hurries far out weight of Spitfires.. So, if there were Spits aval, than yes they typically preformed escort duties.. But they were not always available in numbers, thus a the majority of Germans planes shot down during BoB were shot down by Hurries, be them jerry bombers or fighters

 

What part are you have trouble with Celestiale?

 

With the bested part. No idea where it comes from, that you think a Hurri is better then 109 (which one? ). Even if you had numbers, how many 109s got shot down by Hurri's, and the other way round, which you clearly don't have, it wouldn't say anything. There are so many other things that have to be in consideration..in case of BoB, the German who had to closely cover their bombers, the English knowing that they coming (Radar), being able to attack with a huge energy advantage every time. In addition the 109s had no more then 10-15 minutes to fight over Britain, after this time, they had to fly back because of their fuel. So K/D (which i highly doubt was in favour of the Hurri's) says nothing about the planes..there are many more examples in other theatres as well.

But i don't understand anyway why you were comparing 1940s timeframe with one and a half year later...at the time the English thought about replacing Hurris, they almost only were used as ground attack planes, P40 wouldn't have been very useful for anything else, no match compared to their better fighters (Spit5, later Spit 9)

Edited February 17, 2015 by Celestiale

[ACEOFACES 178]

Bested stems from the simple fact that the Luft lost the BoB and that there were more Hurries aval than Spitfires during BoB

 

Hope that helps!

[II./JG77_Manu* 875]

Bested stems from the simple fact that the Luft lost the BoB and that there were more Hurries aval than Spitfires during BoB

 

Hope that helps!

 

Yeah but this says absolutely nothing about the planes. There were more Stuka and 111 then 109s

[ShamrockOneFive 2475]

True, but generally the hurricanes were tasked with attacking the bombers while the spitfires were tasked with the fighters.

 

I wrote a paper on Battle of Britain RAF and Luftwaffe tactics and while that statement has been repeated many times... research actually indicates otherwise. One of those myths that I used to repeat as well until I wrote the paper.

 

RAF controllers vectored Hurricane and Spitfire squadrons to intercept the bomber formations agnostic of the type of fighter involved. This is where the rest of the history of the event matter more than the individual fighters involved. The Hurricane was good enough and had performance at least close to that of the 109 (vs say the Gloster Gladiator or Hawker Fury bi-planes that had been replaced only a couple of years before). RAF pilots had an enormous home field advantage (with radar, easy pilot recovery when shot down, and reinforcements from 10 group) while Bf109s were stretched to the edge of their range, especially in the late summer when the Luftwaffe started bombing London.

[SCG_wtornado 140]

Some info here:

 

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/

 

The best news in this is that....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.50 cal are coming! That will bring a welcome change from FW/109/YakLAGG whining

 

 

Yes, but the arguments about their effectiveness (.50's) will outstrip the luftwhiners (of which I am a card carrying member) in a matter of days.

 

BALL vs AP vs API vs cannon weight of fire vs machinegun weight of fire vs pattern vs..................................

We better pray the .50 cals are not under-modelled because if old Leadspitter

comes here all hell is gonna break loose.

Edited February 17, 2015 by WTornado

[pilotpierre 692]

From the official RAF web site

 

The Hurricane was a robust aircraft and a stable gun platform, well able to absorb a huge amount of battle damage that would have downed the Spitfire or its German adversary the Me109. It was designed by Sir Sydney Camm and was the latest in the long line of Hawker aircraft all characterised by their rugged, workmanlike construction. It outnumbered the Spitfire roughly two to one during the Battle and is credited with shooting down 656 enemy fighters and bombers against 529 for Spitfires.

[Descolada 26]

We better pray the .50 cals are not under-modelled because if old Leadspitter

comes here all hell is gonna break loose.

machine guns in this game seem to do a lot of damage, even shooting a plane down with .30s on either the 109 or the yak isnt terribly difficult

[BigPickle 34]

I take it the mc202 and the p40 will be in the gold version as bonus planes?

[Feathered_IV 5231]

Looks like, yeah.

[CUJO_1970 915]

Looking forward to all new aircraft added to the sim, including the P40.

[heinkill 200]

If it means anything, the RAF gave serious consideration to replacing all it's Hurricanes with P40s.

"Following its acceptance by the Army Air Corps in 1940, the P-40 was quickly produced and sent to several American air bases. There, the pilots were glad to get new aircraft. The British also received P-40s and matched it against the legendary Messerschmitt Bf-109. The Tomahawk (as the British called the early P-40 models--they named the later models Kittyhawk) did well in combat with the famous German fighter. Although it was a bit slower and outclassed in rate of climb, its good dive speed, superior armor, maneuverability, and armament made the Tomahawk a force to be reckoned with. The Germans felt that it was a more dangerous opponent than the Hawker Hurricane. In fact, the British wanted to replace their old Hurricanes with new P-40s."

 

H

[CUJO_1970 915]

"In Italy the 325 Fighter Group, commonly know as "The Checker-Tailed Clan" amassed one of the best kill to loss ratios of any fighter group in the European Theater. In 1943 the 325th won two major engagements. On July 1, 22 checker-tailed P-40s were making a fighter sweep over southern Italy when they were jumped by 40 Bf-109s. After an intense air battle, the result was half of the German aircraft shot down for the loss of a single P-40. There was a similar situation on the 30th of July, again over Italy, when 35 Bf-109s ambushed 20 P-40s. On this occasion, 21 German fighters were shot down, again for the loss of a single P-40. Because the pilots of the 325th were trained to maximize the P-40's strengths and minimize its weaknesses, it became a lethal opponent for the German fighters. The final record of "The Checker-Tailed Clan's" P-40s was 135 Axis planes shot down (96 were Bf-109s), for only 17 P-40s lost in combat."

 

H

 

As Oleg would tell you: "close this book and never open it again."

 

While I'm sure they were good pilots flying capable aircraft, the 325th FG were huge overclaimers. 

[Finkeren 5783]

Bested stems from the simple fact that the Luft lost the BoB and that there were more Hurries aval than Spitfires during BoB

 

Hope that helps!

Actually there has been analysis done on the BoB which showed, that in fighter vs. fighter engagements during the battle, the Bf 109 actually won the majority.

 

Based on that alone, there can be no doubt, that the Bf 109E was superior to both the Hurricane and the Spitfire Mk. I and II.

 

But that's not how you assess the abilities of a fighter aircraft. We need to look at a long list of factors to be able to say anything meaningful about an aircrafts capabilities.

 

What we can clearly see from the history that followed was, that by 1940 the Hurricane was clearly nearing the end of its development potential as a fighter, while the Spitfire and Bf 109 notably were not.

[LukeFF 4378]

A great panoramic look at the P-40E cockpit on display at the National Museum of the US Air Force: http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/020/P-40E%20Cockpit.html

[heinkill 200]

Nice article here about P40 in the VVS: http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-40/

 

I like this part saying the P40 was given to units that performed poorly: "Later two paths emerge: If the regiment did not particularly distinguish itself in combat (greater losses and lesser victories), it was transferred to PVO and received the P-40M and -N. If it achieved notable combat success, it became a guards regiment and was rearmed with the P-39, Yak-7 and -9, or La-5."

 

Clearly, that is because only the P40 could make good pilots out of them!

 

H

 

PS here is a spooky observation...

 

Take the P40

 

 

Remove the radiator from the chin, move it to the belly and you get this...

 

 

 

If they didn't like it, why did the VVS reverse engineer it? Hmmmmm?

 

H

Edited February 17, 2015 by heinkill

[heinkill 200]

But that's not how you assess the abilities of a fighter aircraft. We need to look at a long list of factors to be able to say anything meaningful about an aircrafts capabilities.

 

 

Don't you dare try and bring facts into this thread.

[Mysticpuma 711]

As Oleg would tell you: "close this book and never open it again." While I'm sure they were good pilots flying capable aircraft, the 325th FG were huge overclaimers.

 

Except they actually underclaimed on those missions and only found out the true tally when Italy capitulated and they were told they had shot down more than they claimed.

 

Where and which missions did they overclaim on? I have spoken with veterans who shot up aircraft but didn't claim a probable, just a damaged. Jack Sherburne got hits in a 109 but as he was a wingman he didn't feel.it right to claim hits as he should have been protecting his leader.

 

This thread could go.the way of many which say the Luftwaffe aces overclaimed but I'd rather not get involved in sweeping generalisations.

 

MP

[Finkeren 5783]

PS here is a spooky observation...

 

Take the P40

 

 

Remove the radiator from the chin, move it to the belly and you get this...

 

 

 

If they didn't like it, why did the VVS reverse engineer it? Hmmmmm?

 

H

How DARE you compare your Sarah Jessica Parker to my beautiful Catherine Zeta Jones?!??!

 

Blasphemer!!!

 

Edited February 17, 2015 by Finkeren

[MiloMorai 612]

 

XP-46

[=Nomader=Krokodil-1 97]

 

 

H

 

PS here is a spooky observation...

 

Take the P40

 

 

 

Remove the radiator from the chin, move it to the belly and you get this...

 

Don't forget to add wing sweep, move the wing forward/cockpit back, elongate the nose, lower cockpit position, move and elongate the horizontal stab, change the tailshape to sweep upwards...

Edited February 17, 2015 by Calvamos

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer 174]

Lets assume that is the case... That does not speak well of the Bf109 does it? To be bested by an obsolete plane.. An analysis that is based on the assumption that there were more Hurris than Spitfires used during the Battle of Britain.. An assumption that I think is accurate. 

 

The Spitfire was developed throughout the war ad beyond, and it was only a year younger than the Hurry. "Obsolete" doesn't simply mean old, it's a bit more complicated.

 

The problem with the Hurricane was not it's age, it was the construction. The thick wings would never allow it to be a fast fighter. Making it so would mean a radical redesign of the whole structure. Actually, it was redesigned in the experimental Hawker Tornado (basically a beefed up Hurricane with a new engine), which eventually gave way to the Hawker Typhoon.

 

Hawker Tornado, 1st prototype:

 

 

The Spitfire and Bf 109 (and the P-40) were all metal, thin winged constructions from the outset, making upgrading for faster flight possible without fully redesigning them. Actually, the Bf 109 saw a radical redesign between the E and F models, and the Spittfire too has a radical nose-job to become the Griffon-engined monstrosity that flew at the war's end.

Edited February 17, 2015 by 79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer

[Elbows 58]

As usual with this forum, we can drop all the arguing...the good news is we're getting 10 more planes.  And eventually a mission builder.  There is nothing bad about this.  I love the P-40 but I know it won't be a match for most German fighters (almost none of our VVS planes are).  Doesn't mean I won't enjoy flying it around.  I guarantee a good pilot here could shoot me down in the I-16 while I'm flying an Fw-190...I'm that bad of a pilot.

 

I enjoy the study of success/failures in WW2 aviation but the arguing is pointless.  A good pilot can change all of that in a moment.

[Finkeren 5783]

Elbows, I don't think anyone's really 'arguing'. We're just a pack of nerds having fun in our anticipation. The real arguing may begin once the P-40 is released in early access

[CUJO_1970 915]

Except they actually underclaimed on those missions and only found out the true tally when Italy capitulated and they were told they had shot down more than they claimed.

Where and which missions did they overclaim on? I have spoken with veterans who shot up aircraft but didn't claim a probable, just a damaged. Jack Sherburne got hits in a 109 but as he was a wingman he didn't feel.it right to claim hits as he should have been protecting his leader.

MP

The July 30 combat that was referenced earlier in this thread. It is well known and has been thoroughly debunked. JG/77 also over claimed during this battle.

 

Better to continue this discussion via PM as it will go off topic and result in a lock and that is not my intention. Let's keep this thread about the P-40E.

[Stig 87]

Except they actually underclaimed on those missions and only found out the true tally when Italy capitulated and they were told they had shot down more than they claimed.

 

Where and which missions did they overclaim on? I have spoken with veterans who shot up aircraft but didn't claim a probable, just a damaged. Jack Sherburne got hits in a 109 but as he was a wingman he didn't feel.it right to claim hits as he should have been protecting his leader.

 

This thread could go.the way of many which say the Luftwaffe aces overclaimed but I'd rather not get involved in sweeping generalisations.

 

MP

 

A couple of interesting threads here from a forum you have posted in yourself, Mystic.

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=29048&highlight=325th+fighter+group

 

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=29045&highlight=325th+fighter+group

 

The 325th didn't underclaim, don't no that I would call them huge overclaimers but they did overclaim on the same scale as other units in the area and same period of time. I can't find anything on the 1.7.1943, the 325th don't make any claims as far as I can see. The group recieved a DUC for the battle on  30.7.1943, but the Germans lost 4 Bf 109's in that action vs. the 21 credited to the 325th.

Oops, Cujo beat me to it.

[MiloMorai 612]

325th FG,

lists losses and claims,

http://raf-112-squadron.org/325thfghonor_roll.html

[MiloMorai 612]

For Lw claims, https://web.archive.org/web/20130928070316/http://lesbutler.co.uk/claims/tonywood.htm

[Sokol1 1523]

in case of BoB, the German who had to closely cover their bombers, the English knowing that they coming (Radar),

In addition the 109s had no more then 10-15 minutes to fight over Britain, after this time, they had to fly back because of their fuel. 

 

But this was only is last phases of the battle, in Kanalkampf the fighters are not tied to close escort, and have not serious fuel limitation.

 

Bf 109 did good work in B of B - facilitated by the fact that have only Spit and Hurri as targets, flying in "neat" close VIC formations. 

 

 

 

 

British fighter losses of 1,023, Germans lost 873 fighters. 223 Bf 110s 650 Bf 109s. 

Assuming, in broad terms, that some 75% of British fighter losses were caused by the Bf 109s German fighter pilots shot down about 770 Hurricanes and Spitfires,

a favourable kill ratio of 1.2: 1.

They were therefore less successful than the British, who achieved an overall kill ratio of 1.8:1, but still meted out more punishment than they took.

The Osterkamp target: 5: 1 

[heinkill 200]

Claims, shmaims.

 

Sexy is as as sexy does. Luftwaffe pilots will bail out in embarrassment, die with envy, allow themselves to get shot down just so they can see it up close in their mirrors.

 

 

Best IL2 P40 campaign?

 

http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads3&file=details&id=104

 

Checkertails over the Med.

 

 

And looking at the cockpit and 3D model in this just makes me thirst for the BoS P40 more...

 

H

Edited February 17, 2015 by heinkill

[Y-29.Silky 479]

I like how this thread quickly turned into a Spit/Hurri vs 109 thread. Anyways, back to the P-40.. 

I had a hell of a lot of time in a P-40, probably close to a thousand hours. I could make it sit up and talk. It was an unforgiving airplane. It had vicious stall characteristics. ... If you knew what you were doing, you could fight a Jap on even terms, but you had to make him fight your way. He could out-turn you at slow speed. You could out-turn him at high speed. When you got into a turning fight with him, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed up, you could out-turn him. At low speed he could out-roll you because of those big ailerons. They looked like barn doors on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could out-roll it. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls ...

I cannot wait to hear how they implemented the sounds of those 50's.. 

Edited February 17, 2015 by Silky

[heinkill 200]

AND we should definitely start discussion of what loadouts we want....

 

1x 52-U.S. gallon tank (centerline),

1x bomb of up to 500-lbs. (centerline),

1x bomb up to 100-lbs. (each wing)

RS-82 rockets

Remove x 2 .50 cal MG to improve handling

Six 250lb bombs: Kittybomber!

 

 

But be careful if Googling 'Kittybomber' you might get a page of these... NSFW NSFW

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2015 by heinkill

[heinkill 200]

Don't forget to add wing sweep, move the wing forward/cockpit back, elongate the nose, lower cockpit position, move and elongate the horizontal stab, change the tailshape to sweep upwards...

 

OK here you go...

 

 

Oops, no, definitely not the Mig, it's the XP40 prototype   No way those law abiding Russian spies got a hold of those schematics, no sirree!

 

Juss messin. I don't really think they did. The two machines are totally different.

 

H

Edited February 17, 2015 by heinkill

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi 1147]

Soviet P-40s were quickly adopted to carry as you mentioned RS-82 rockets, but also FAB-250 bombs. Kittyhawk was very often used as a ground attacker.