|
Demosthenes -> RE: How would German WWII Ac rate to WITP Ac ? (3/7/2006 11:53:00 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hipper
My bad, about the FW 190's
For P-40 vs Me 109 (and others) read: Erik Shilling, John Lundstrom, Steven Vincent
http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html
On that chat note the following the problem was that german fighters could operate above the p40's and Knock them down in diving slashing attacks then regain height faster than the P40's to escape The RAF proved this at tedious length in the desert in 1941 & 1942, the answer was to have top cover so that, the me 109's had to look over their Shoulder
thats what the USAAF did in north africa
The P40 was an excelent medium altitude plane but was outclassed at high altitude
"On the E or K, 22,000 ft. could be achieved with reasonable performance, but
above that full throttle would barely manage to keep the airplane flying
slightly faster than stalling speed. Raising the nose ever so slightly--or even
firing the guns while straight and level--could knock it into a stall,
depending on how good the engine was running that day and how good the pilot's
reactions were. It took some careful stick handling to wheeze up above 25,000
ft. It was done, too, with 49FG P-40s intercepting Japanese bombers above that
altitude. Pilots flying the N model were able to intercept and shoot down
Dinah recon planes flying at 31,000 ft., but only after long chases. But no
model P-40 was in its element at those altitudes. The 109 could at least
operate in the 25,000 to 28,000 ft. environment with some degree of performance
margin. The best the P-40 could do was hope to be above its foe and in
position to make a diving attack. Were it attacked at that altitude, if the
P-40 driver was not sufficiently quick to recognize the danger and dive away,
he was in serious trouble. On one raid over Darwin, P-40Es were at 26,000 ft.
positioning themselves to attack Japanese bombers at 22,000 ft. when they were
hit by the Zero escort diving from above. The Curtiss machines were helpless
to counter a fighter threat at that altitude and three P-40s went down
immediately, the greatest single loss of the entire Darwin campaign. My guess
is that an Me 109 at 26,000 ft. would have had a better chance against the
Zero.
But maybe not. The Zero was an airplane best never underestimated."
Search for Google's copy of this article
Yep - but with further reading you will note that diving down on a P-40 from well above was the ONLY way an ME 109 could maintain advantage over a P-40...and that would have to be combat above 20,000 feet.
Down below 20,000 the advantages were all P-40 in turning, speed, dive, and Zoom climb.
Continue reading...
>The P-40 was considered outclassed by the Bf109
By whom?
Granted, the 109 had superior high altitude performance, but that wouldn't have
been a concern on the eastern front. The P-40 could outroll the Me, outdive it
(although the Me had an initial advantage), outturn it, had comparable speed, a
more rugged airframe, more survivable plumbing arrangement, and superior
firepower. The one major advantage (aside from high altitude performance) the
Me had over the P-40 was a superior rate of climb. But the P-40 had a slightly
superior zoom climb. Of course, the P-40 had greater lift capacity and range.
The 325FG flew 128 combat missions with the P-40 in the MTO.
Results:
Shot down in air-to-air combat:
96 Me 109
26 MC 202
7 Me 323
3 Ju 52
3 Fi 156
In addition, the 325's P-40s dropped 329,000 lbs. of bombs.
Losses:
17 to enemy fighters
6 to flak
5 to unknown causes (probably weather, fuel or mechanical)
3 to engine failure
2 to mid-air collision
1 to small-arms fire
1 to hitting high tension wires.
The 325FG had two brilliant victories over the Me 109 while equipped with the
P-40. On July 1, 1943, while on a fighter sweep over southern Italy, 22 P-40s
were bounced by 40 Me 109s. Results: one P-40 shot down, 20 Me 109s shot down.
On July 30, 1943, similar situation: 20 P-40s on a fighter sweep over Italy
bounced by 35 Me 109s. One P-40 shot down, 21 Me 109s shot down.
In these two battles, the 109s engaged the P-40s in classic, turning
dogfights--and lost big time. The Curtiss fighter could outmaneuver the German
fighter, take hits that would wreck the Me, and dish out much greater firepower
than the 109. The Me's only clear superiority was in the climb, which was not
helpful. It could not out-turn the P-40s, dive away from them or outrun them.
Nor could it outshoot them or take as much punishment as they could.
Add in the fact that the Mess. drivers faced a very aggressive bunch of pilots
(the motto of the 325 was "Shoot the Bastards"), and it's no wonder they found
themselves "screwed, blued and tattooed."
Never sell the P-40 short.
- from Erik Shilling, John Lundstrom
On British P-40 losses in North Africa..
>>>The P-40 was considered outclassed by the Bf109
>
>>By whom?
>
>RAF/SAAF
Certainly the SAAF suffered grievous losses at the hands of the Luftwaffe in
North Africa, and the RAF had some rough times, too. But an examination of
what happened will reveal the British and Commonwealth forces using poor
tactics. It has been commented on more than once that while RAF units in
Britain were flying finger-four formations after the Battle of Britain, RAF and
Commonwealth forces in the Med were still routinely flying Vics and line-astern
formations long afterward. They were also using the completely useless
Lufberry Circle.
- from Erik Shilling, John Lundstrom
|
|
|
|
