What Colonel Gabreski said about the P40

[streakeagle]

Let the dead horse beatings continue:

I reserve the right to disagree. I could just as easily say the P-47 has never much of a plane compared to its contemporaries the P-38, P-51, Spitfire, etc. and you would disagree just as much.

The P-40 and P-47 are two different designs from two different timeframes... the P-43 never cut it, so Republic had to make the P-47... whereas the P-40 went into production immediately upon completion of testing. You can't compare apples and oranges and say the apple is obviously so much superior to the orange. You may think you P-47 is better because it has some performance and armament advantages, but the P-47 was nowhere to be seen in 1941 either. The P-40 might have been 80% to 90% of the P-47 in terms of perfomance... but it was 100% the plane the P-47 was in terms of getting its pilots home and contributing to victory in WW2, and just like the P-40, the P-47 was replaced by the P-51 as fast as merlin engine production permitted.

Is a Volkswagen Beetle half the car of a Porche 911? Not in my opinion. Two entirely different machines for entirely different people.

Of the American iron in AH, I am sure you have flown the P-47 the most. I have flown it the least. I will fly the P-40 as much as my favorite the P-51. To each his own.

But the numbers tell the story

They most certainly do. Read the production numbers, the sortie numbers, the kill rates, loss rates. Performance brochures mean nothing. Results mean everything.

My comment that the P-40 was no less of a plane than the P-47 is most certainly true if you look at it from the perspective that it flew and fought successfully throughout WW2 in almost all the same roles as the P-47 and in some roles the P-47 didn't. This perspective is no more or less subjective than Gabreski's opinion or your support of his opinion. He could have said the same of the Hurricane based on performance criteria, but it wouldn't be a fact. The theoretical performance of an aircraft means nothing, it is how effectively it is employed. Not only the AVG, but the RAF, RAAF, and VVS enjoyed significant successes with the P-40. Both the Hurricane and P-40 were as critical if not moreso to victory in WW2 as the P-47. In my mind that easily makes the P-40 as much of a plane as the P-47. Because later aircraft had better performance does not make the older aircraft any less of a plane.

[-ammo-]

OK when we get the P-40 here, you take it, i take a p-47, stand off 30 paces and *draw*.

Maybe then you will see my point. I am agreeing with you that the P-40 performed its role well, but you dont hear that part...obviously.

[eddiek]

More to the P-40's production from beginning of war to the end.  Read into it more....some stuff you don't hear about because no one wants to remember it.
Curtiss Aircraft, after the war, ceased to be a major player in the aircraft industry.  Why?
To cut through all the BS, the government did not cut Curtiss off at the knees like they should have during the war, because of the coverups concerning production, profits, cost overruns, fraudulent data, etc......in a nutshell, the US government had too much invested in Curtiss, and the blackeyes and tarnished reputations that would have resulted had they acted on their information would have wrecked the war effort.  In other words.....a scandal.
The P40 program was allowed to continue because of this.  The P40 series ceased to be a viable firstline combat aircraft once the P38 and P47 were available, yet projects continued, with little improvement in performance until war's end.
I'll dig through some of my books here.
IIRC, there was talk of a Congressional investigation, but it was swept under the rug after the war because they felt America was tired of war and was ready to enjoy peacetime.
Gimme a couple days, I'll find the material I'm talking about.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by streakeagle
The P-40 and P-47 are two different designs from two different timeframes... the P-43 never cut it, so Republic had to make the P-47... whereas the P-40 went into production immediately upon completion of testing. You can't compare apples and oranges and say the apple is obviously so much superior to the orange. You may think you P-47 is better because it has some performance and armament advantages, but the P-47 was nowhere to be seen in 1941 either. The P-40 might have been 80% to 90% of the P-47 in terms of perfomance... but it was 100% the plane the P-47 was in terms of getting its pilots home and contributing to victory in WW2, and just like the P-40, the P-47 was replaced by the P-51 as fast as merlin engine production permitted.

There are some facts that might shed a little light onto this discussion.

For starters, the P-43 would fly rings around the P-40 at any altitude above 15k. Remember, it was turbosupercharged, just like the P-47. When AVG pilots ferried in P-43s for the Chinese Air Force, they recognized that it was superior to their Tomahawks and asked Chennault to allow them to keep the "Lancers". Chennault decided not to keep the P-43s, but not because they were't good fighters. There was no logistical system in place to support the plane, and the self-sealing fuel tanks leaked terribly, the rubber liners having rotted in storage. Chennault did not what his pilots flying fire-traps, no matter how well they performed.

The P-47 came about as the USAAC realized that they needed a fighter that could pack more guns, fly further and faster than any of the aircraft in the inventory at the time. Indeed, the original XP-47 was a short range, light weight fighter powered by the Allison V-1710. It was abandoned when the USAAC revised the specification. The Thunderbolt prototype was the XP-47B. Ever hear of the XP-44? This was a modified P-43 powered by the R-2800 engine, eventually destined for the XP-47B. This fighter never went beyond mockup, however, it would have been considerably faster than any P-40, and could operate at very high altitudes. It simply did not have the range that the USAAC had now demanded due to the lack of space in the airframe for fuel tanks (the turbo and its ducting literally filled the fuselage).

Curtiss received a contract for the P-40, despite the fact that the P-43 out-performed it handily. In retrospect, we can see that this was a political and economic decision. Political, because Curtiss had considerable clout with the Army. Economic, because the viability of the newly reorganized Republic Aviation (renamed from Seversky, after Seversky's removal by Board vote) was still uncertain. To keep Republic's skilled work force intact, the USAAC ordered P-43s while design and development continued on the XP-47B. Most of these P-43s would find their way into training units, with some being transferred to the Chinese, along with a batch of Vultee P-66s.

My regards,

Widewing

[streakeagle]

Widewing, your post says it all. In need of an operational aircraft more than one with nice brochure numbers, Chenault went with the P-40. He didn't need state of the art performance to win. He needed planes that could survive the rigors of daily flights and combat. Thank you for supporting my argument

[streakeagle]

As for flying rings around P-40 above 15,000 feet, the time the P-40 was selected over the P-38 and P-39, the Army was steadfastly against turbochargers and superchargers. They saw them as reliability problems and didn't anticipate the need to provide high-altitude escort and interception duties. In fact, they expected most fighters would spend most of their time down low either providing ground support or denying enemy ground support. At a great cost in performance, the Army actually had the supercharger that was orignally on the P-39 prototype removed for production!

There was no reason other than Army politics why the P-40 could not have had a powerplant setup similar to the Spitfire and Mustang and been a competitive high-altitude aircraft. But, as events would have it, the Mustang had a much more modern air frame and proved to be so much superior with the Merlin that not even the heavily modified P-40Q could equal Mustang performance, hence the majority of the Packard Merlins produced were used in Mustangs rather than supporting P-38 and P-40 development and production. Mustangs hogged so many of the Merlins, that some P-40F airframes had to be converted to use Allisons before the P-40 production line fully reverted back to Allison variants.

It is a fact of US military procurement procedures that politics will lead to erronenous decisions. The P-40, as submitted to the Army test, probably should have lost to the P-38. But the P-38, as submitted to the Army test, was expensive, far from producable, and crashed.

As it stands, I love all of these aircraft whether they are Axis, Allied, fighter, bomber, or even transport. I don't really seen any one as being less than any other despite my personal taste. But I really take offence to any claim that the P-40 wasn't much of a plane even coming from the mouth of a respected P-47 ace, real or virtual.

Besides, this beats arguing over the standard whines

[-ammo-]

Oh yea?!

Well the P-47 wil HO better than the P-40! take that!

[streakeagle]

I faced you and your P-47 buds in the CT a few times... I gave almost as good as I got using 109F4 to HO/snap shoot you guys diving in on me with pairs vs my lower lone wolf. I think I could do as well or better in a P-40B.

One thing I learned while looking up P-40 stuff the past couple of days is that the AVG may have had only 2x0.30 cal in the wings vice the 4 in the P-40B... eek, already pitiful armament cut in half. The color AVG photo I linked to earlier seems to support that. At least it still has the 2x0.50 cal in the nose.

I fear in AH that with only 2x0.50s and 2x0.30s, I couldn't down a P-47 even if I hit with every round unless I got a pilot hit or shot off the tail feathers.

On the bright side, if HTC were to properly model the AVG aircraft, they were custom built. The engines were the equivalent of "blueprinted" and the airframes lacking later features and armament were lighter, so they performed a little better than the USAAF P-40Bs.

[-ammo-]

I guess I should have put [sacasm] there. I was refering to the "standard whines" thing:)

[H. Godwineson]

Good topic being discussed in this thread.  I'd like to jump in with several points to ponder.

The P-40 was an aircraft that had several useful qualities:
     1. Ruggedness

     2.  Availability (I believe it was Lenin who said that quantity    
          has a quality all its own.)

     3.  Solid low-level performance.

The P-40's ruggedness is beyond debate, so I won't dwell on it here.

If memory serves, the P-40 was available in greater numbers than any other fighter the U.S. had in its inventory when the war began.  

Low-level performance, especially in some of the later models, was more than adequate to leave early war Japanese fighters gasping in their wake.

The greatest handicap faced by the P-40 pilot in 1942 was his own mindset.  Army pilots, who couldn't conceive of the Japanese pilots being able to do more than take off and land their aircraft, too often made the mistake of attempting to engage the Zero and Oscar in a dogfight.  Consequently, they were shot down in droves.

The lesson that Chennault drove home relentlessly with the AVG was simple:  "Do not dogfight with the Japanese fighters, or very quickly you will be dead!"  The Army pilots learned that lesson the hard way.  But learn it they did.  When they finally began to use the P-40's assets properly they more than held their own with the Japanese.

While the P-40 remained useful as a ground attack aircraft until the last days of the war, it is gross exaggeration to suggest that it was the equal of the P-47 in ground attack capability or in air-to-air combat.  Against late-war Axis fighters the P-40 could not have lived without P-47's, P-51's or P-38's around to establish air-superiority over the battlefield.

In my humble opinion, the P-47 should receive more credit for the destruction of the Luftwaffe than the P-51.  While the Mustang had the range to escort bombers to Germany and back, it was not available in 1942 and early 1943.  During that period, the P-47, and to a lesser extend the P-38, challenged the Luftwaffe when its pilots were at the height of their power and skill.  The bloody battles of those years bled off the cream of the enemy pilots.  The Mustang played a definite role in finishing the destruction of the Luftwaffe, but its job would have been considerably harder if it had not had that big "blocking back" leading the way.

Finally, in response to a statement about Stalin preferring the P-39 over the P-40, I would offer the following comments.  The Russians used their aircraft mainly in a ground-attack role.  For that, the P-39's firepower was superior to the P-40's.  Also, the P-39's low-level performance and climb were superior not only to that of the P-40, but the Zero as well.  Before the howls start, let me say that the preceding statement is based on official AAF test results between the P-39 and the Zero 21.  To altitudes of 10,000 feet the Airacobra was superior to the Zero in climb and level speeds and acceleration.  The Zero began to show its superiority over the P-39 at altitudes above 12,500 feet.  The Zero reached 25,000 feet approximately five minutes ahead of the P-39.

Ergo, the P-39 fit the needs of the Russians quite well.

Regards, Shuckins

[streakeagle]

Originally posted by H. Godwineson
In my humble opinion, the P-47 should receive more credit for the destruction of the Luftwaffe than the P-51.

The argument that the P-47 should get more credit since it was available sooner and faced worse odds than the P-51 is exactly what I was saying about the P-40 relative to the P-47. Of a course a later design is generally superior, but Hitler and company weren't exactly going to co-operate and wait for the F-86 to be developed to beat them. The P-40 faced worse odds than the P-47 ever saw and not only survived, but cleared the skies well enough to hold the lines until the more modern aircraft came to turn the tide, and its combat performance was good enough to justify production all the way to the end of 1944. Not bad for an airplane that was obsolete the day it went into service.

Finally, in response to a statement about Stalin preferring the P-39 over the P-40, I would offer the following comments.  The Russians used their aircraft mainly in a ground-attack role.

The P-39 was not generally used for ground attack by the VVS, it was considered an interceptor/escort fighter. Russian leaders simply preferred to have cannon armed fighters regardless of their role, so the P-40 was not looked upon favorably regardless of its merits over the P-39.

And Ammo, of course I detected your intended sarcasm about the HO I was flying the P-47 in HtH a week or so ago, and had a blast every time someone would try to get by me. They seem to think I can't judge the lead angle on a Spitfire or Tempest trying to avoid an HO. The nice thing about HtH is I can go to an external view and watch the them disintegrate as I zoom past. 4 x 20 mm may be better, but the 8 x 50 cal seem to be pretty good in my book.

[M.C.202]

streakeagle said:
But, as events would have it, the Mustang had a much more modern air frame and proved to be so much superior with the Merlin that not even the heavily modified P-40Q could equal Mustang performance, hence the majority of the Packard Merlins produced were used in Mustangs rather than supporting P-38 and P-40 development and production.
END  QUOTE

The P-40Q use an Allison 1710-121 of 1,425 hp at take-off, 1,100 at 25,000 ft.
The airframe was changed about the same degree as the change from P-51A to P-51D.
................Top Speed
P-40Q.......422 mph at 20,500 ft
P-51A........385 mph at 20,000 ft
P-51B........424 mph at 15,000 ft, 430mph at  25,000 ft
P-51D........437 mph at 25,000 ft, 401 mph at 10,000 ft

...................Climb to 20,000
P-40Q.........4.8 min
P-51A..........9 min (that's what the book said) or 6.3 off a chart with W.B.
P-51B..........5 min 54 sec to 20,000
P-51D..........6 min 15 sec (?, off a chart)

All that and four 20mm hyper turbo cannon:)

For mixed low to 25,000 ft air to air and ground support, I'd go for the P-40Q

Now if ya want to include the P-51 H...

[streakeagle]

Originally posted by M.C.202
For mixed low to 25,000 ft air to air and ground support, I'd go for the P-40Q

Now if ya want to include the P-51 H...

Umm, my opinion doesn't matter: USAAF decided P-51H's were better than reworked P-40s that were still slower than anything else flying as of 1943... and the year was 1944 Besides, the P-51s were already in production, the LW was already defeated, and the P-40Q would have arrived too late like so many of the other late war types. P-51H ended up having over 500 produced. Must be some reason why in late 1944 the USAAF chose to pursue building the 487 mph P-51H over the 422 mph P-40Q?

[Hyrax81st]

A note about the P-40B effectiveness from the following link....

http://www.aviation-central.com/1940-1945/aef40.htm

Though often outclassed by its adversaries in speed, maneuverability and rate of climb, the P-40 earned a reputation in battle for extreme ruggedness. At the end of the P-40's brilliant career, more than 14,000 had been produced for service in the air forces of 28 nations...on Dec. 20, 1941, the Flying Tigers received their "baptism under fire" when they inflicted heavy losses on Japanese bombers attempting to attack Kunming.  Months of combat followed...scored a very impressive record against the enemy, 286 Japanese planes shot down at a cost of 12 A.V.G. pilots killed or missing in action.

and this from...  http://www.acepilots.com/planes/aces_descr.html#p40

Joel Paris was a P-40 ace with the 49th Fighter Group in the Southwest Pacific. In "Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific", he relates his opinion of the P-40:

I never felt that I was a second-class citizen in a P-40. In many ways I thought the P-40 was better than the more modern fighters. 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 outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn 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 outturn him. At low speed he could outroll you because of those big ailerons. They looked like barn doors on the Zero. If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll it. His big ailerons didn't have the strength to make high speed rolls ...

You could push things, too. Because you knew one thing: If you decided to go home, you could go home. He couldn't because you could outrun him. He couldn't leave the fight because you were faster. That left you in control of the fight. Mind you: The P-40 was a fine combat airplane.

Maybe U.S. wingman fighter tactics made for a superior outcome, as well.

[Hyrax81st]

Another note about P-39 Airacobras being primarily ground attack planes...

Several Soviet Airacobra aces are known. One of the leading Russian aces, Alexander Pokryshin, with 59 kills, scored 48 of these in a P-39.

A list of some Leading Soviet Aces in the P-39 from
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/soviet_p39_airacobra.html

Pilot           Vic's    (P-39 Vic's)
Pokryshkin 59          (48)
Gulaev       57          (41)
Rechkalov  56          (50)
Glinka        50           (41)
Smirnov     34           (30)
Babak        33           (32)
Komelkov   32           (32)
Klubov        31           (27)
Glinka         31           (31)

and regarding its use in ground attacks...

Tank-Busting Myth
Numerous sources in aviation history describe the Soviet use of the P-39 as a tank-buster. Since this did not happen (except perhaps on occasion, as when one of the Tuskegee Airmen opportunisticly shot up a destroyer with his P-47), how did the myth get started? Certainly that big cannon firing through the propeller suggested the possibility of such use, although typical anti-tank guns were of much larger caliber. In the prologue, James Gebhardt persuasively suggests that poor translations may have contributed to the confusion. A common Russian air operation of the war was "prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk," literally translated "coverage of ground forces." To Western readers, such words implied close air support, i.e. trooop-strafing, tank-busting, and other direct support of the infantry. But on reading the extensive, and readily available, Russian sources, it is clear that "prikrytiye sukhoputnykh voysk" meant establishing air superiority in an area, protecting the ground pounders from bombing and strafing by German airplanes.