P-40 Better than the Spitfire

[Lusekofte]

LINK

 

I have always believed that the P 40 is represented badly in this simulator. It just do not show itself the same way as Pilots flying it represent it.

I can dig up a interview about a airshow pilot in US saying that he find the manoeuvrability better in the P 40 than the P 51 he also fly. If he had a choice between the two for a fun flight he choose the P 40. 

Of course he reconsider if it is talk about survivability in the skies over France / Germany in 1944. 

Well I am not  representing this article to make another FW 190 tread, because this is about other things

 

 

The P-40 Kittyhawk Was Even Better Than The Spitfire, Says Former WW2 Pilot

Former P-40 fighter pilot John Bailey is of the opinion the P-40 ‘Kittyhawk’ was preferable to the renowned Spitfire.

 

It was one of the best fighters in the campaign over the skies of Papua New Guinea, he says. They were built with quality, dependability, and longevity in mind. The Spitfire wasn’t as good in that regard. Rarely could a full squadron of them be put in the air.

And he should know. His experience started at age 21 when in 1943, he flew his first sortie in the campaign. He flew 102 sorties against the Japanese while he was with 75 Squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force.

[19//Moach]

 

 

seems "represented badly" is a fact almost absurd to deny or ignore here

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I think the comparison should be done in context: against the Japanese (basically A6M, Ki-43, maybe even Ki-61) I can see how the P-40 would be better than a Spit (Mk Vs were used in that campaign?), as it's advantages like speed and good dive worked against the nimble Japanese planes, the Spitfire played more or less the same game than the Japanese planes but with a slight disadvantage in agility, and this is also

considering the early-ish variants of the Spitfire, as from the Mk IX onwards the Spitfire got better and better, remaining a very capable first line fighter in Europe while the P-40s got relegated into second line fighter/ground support in the late war.

 

Another interesting note, in the China theater when the pilots were converting from the P-40N to the P-51K at first some pilots prefered staying with the P-40N, as it had the necessary strong points to fight against the late Ki-43s while it was more agile than the P-51. However as the Ki-84 started to have significative presence, the P-51K eventually ended up as the main fighter in the late part of the war.

Edited February 25, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[unreasonable]

The context is not just the tactical one of what type of opponent it faced, it is also the operational one of keeping planes in service. Think of "betterness" as being fighting quality times serviceability. 

 

The Spitfire was fragile by comparison, not really well suited for operations off partly prepared forward bases. It was made with UK air defense in mind, operating from established bases close to all the logistic and maintenance support.

 

So when someone says "preferable" that does not necessarily mean that it was a better fighter on a one-one comparison: simply that in the Pacific context your fighting quality times serviceability is better.

[Lusekofte]

Keep in mind, I do not expect it to be a better all round fighter, but there are inexistent advantages with our model. We got a model that support all the negative attitudes of the plane , but simply do not have the things it was good in 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

There are many things to keep in mind Luse. But thing that caught my attention was the fact that John Bailey flew with No. 75 RAAF Squadron only since 1943. That is completely different situation to what No. 75 pilots experienced in 1942 when they lost a decent number of aircraft and scored few victories. In 1943 there were also P-38s and P-47s flying over New Guinea, not to mention that Japanese Army was a different kind of opponent to Navy. Another thing is that No. 75 RAAF Squadron did not operate Spitfires, so I'm not exactly sure on what such opinion is based. On his observations ? Or discussions with pilots ? But then its also not exactly an opinion that does both aircraft justice. The only squadron that operated Spitfires in New Guinea was No. 79 RAAF Sqn. and they only moved to Goodenough Island in May-June 1943 and they had little success. Squadrons that participated in Darwin campaign were in different position though. 

 

But to be fair, P-40s that he and No. 75 operated were most likely K-model. Spitfires given to RAAF in 1943 were a high altitude type, Spitfire Vc with Merlin 46 engine. Problems with Spitfires are pretty well explained here: http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=shortages-of-drop-tanks-spares-and-spitfires

Spitfires were new to this theater of war while P-40s were used in the Pacific since the outbreak of the war so various issues were already solved. 

 

Those are two very different aircraft but to assume that P-40 is a superior aircraft based on that opinion ... well, P-40s numerous times failed to intercept recce aircraft over Port Moresby due to their piss poor climb rate. Neither Spitfires nor P-38s had that problem. There are things at which P-40 is superior and there are things at which Spitfire is. 

 

 

 

Another interesting note, in the China theater when the pilots were converting from the P-40N to the P-51K at first some pilots prefered staying with the P-40N, as it had the necessary strong points to fight against the late Ki-43s while it was more agile than the P-51.

 

I have read the opposite Particularly in 1943 in China-Burma when Japanese converted from Type 1 Model 1 fighter to Type 1 Model 2 with two-speed supercharger. Superior performance of Oscars over 20,000 feet prompted units to fill requests for a new aircraft to be delivered to the front as current P-40s were not suited for combat at or above that altitudes. 

[Farky]

RAAF report Kittyhawk I (P-40E) vs. Capstan (Spitfire V, Merlin 46, filter Vokes) -

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Nice one Farky, thanks for bringing it ! So that report is from December 1942.

 

In regard to Vokes air filter however : http://www.darwinspitfires.com/index.php?page=the-vokes-air-filter-controversy

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

I have read the opposite Particularly in 1943 in China-Burma when Japanese converted from Type 1 Model 1 fighter to Type 1 Model 2 with two-speed supercharger. Superior performance of Oscars over 20,000 feet prompted units to fill requests for a new aircraft to be delivered to the front as current P-40s were not suited for combat at or above that altitudes. 

 

I have gone back to checking the book I supposedly took that from, the P-51 started to arrive in good quantities in late 1944, when Chennault had been asking for it during the earlier two years; at least according to the author it doesn't look like it was triggered by newer Japanese planes. However I couldn't find what I said about the pilots prefering the P-40, so I must have taken that from somewhere else :/

 

The P-40N had a top speed of 608 kmh (378 mph) at 6,100 m (20,013 ft), but don't know if this degraded quickly when going higher. Most of the combat described in the early-mid 1944 where the main fights between the P-40N and Ki-43-II happened was around supporting/countering the Japanese offensive in China, the American fighters would mostly take on the fighter-bomber role, supporting the Chinese army and doing combat patrols at low altitude, attacking transport columns, trains, shipping, etc. When encountered with Japanese planes (Ki-51s and Ki-43s) they would go sweep mode and engage as pure fighters. There were also some tactical bombing with B-25s and Ki-48s, generally with the objective of taking out of service each other's airfields. P-47s and P-38s were also present.

 

It makes me think of the Eastern Front style of combat (maybe with more distance between the air bases). There was also some tactical bombing, using B-25s and Ki-48s to attack enemy airfields for example.

Edited February 25, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

The exact quote is:

"In summer 1943 the last of the model 1 Type 1 fighters had been replaced by the Ki-43 II in China. At that time the Japanese also changed tactics and increased the altitude of their attacks to the vicinity of 20,000 feet or above where the Type 1 fighter was more competitive to the P-40 in speed. This plus the introduction of the Type 2 fighter resulted in P-40 squadron commanders complaining (September-October 1943 period) about being at a tactical disadvantage in combat with "the new Zero." The combat performance of the Type 2 fighter was generally superior to the Type 1 fighter except in maneuverability and in this regard there was little difference between it and its American opponents. Nonetheless the new Japanese tactics resulted in unanimous requests from P-40 squadron commanders for fighters with improved performance."

Source: R. L. Dunn, Exploding Fuel Tanks - Saga of Technology That Changed the Course of the Pacific Air War, May 2011, Chapter VIII Air Combat Late 1943-Early 1944, page 117.

 

Similar could be found in Christopher Shores, Air War For Burma. Also, based on data in it I'd rather assume that at given time to which my quote is related there were rather P-40 K and M variants more common. But either way, that would not change much if that was only N. 

 

At given time in Burma most common even of encountering Japanese would be in form of escort of Army bombers (Ki-48s, Ki-21s) or interceptions. It indeed runs some similarities to Eastern Front combat but not quite exactly. Also, Japanese tactics point is fairly interested. Somewhere in my books I have a very interesting description of JAAF tactics developed to counter high altitude boom and zoom attacks. If anyone would be interested I could try looking for it. 

[Sokol1]

In 1943 RAAF P-40 job in New Guinea was basically this:

 

 

Not fight for air supremacy against Zeros and Ki' - Allied always have supremacy at this at time, and better planes to deal with the matter. 

 

The pilot quote above don't say nothing about dogfights, and this can' t be used as "proof" that BoS P-40 is "dumb down", specially because virtual P-40 pilots want win the air supremacy over the (virtual) Russian Front whit that "mule". 

Edited February 25, 2017 by Sokol1

[Lusekofte]

I am not saying the P 40 is dumbed down, I say I do not recognise my perspective on how it should be based on years of reading. I do recognise a lot of things , but mostly known disadvantages. 

I did not say it should perform better in a Dogfight, simply because I do not dogfight. Basically what I say is, if this have been a Luftwaffe plane it would have been just as much trouble as with the FW 190. To me the developer have ruined this plane and I wish it never was built for this sim. 

You are better off in a IL 2