P-40 vs. ME-109 (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

From Shores' Fighters over the Desert , I calculated the following:

168 x Tomahawk for 47 x Bf-109
223 x Kittyhawk for 97 x Bf-109
11 x P-40F for 4 x Bf-109

summary: 402:148 (3.7:1)

From Shores' Fighters over Tunisia:

62 x Kittyhawk for 25 x Bf-109
58 x P-40F for 33 x Bf-109

summary: 120:58 (2.1:1)
"Desert" was written with pretty complete specific German claims (from Hans Ring, Shores' co-author) and Allied claims and losses, but not complete German losses. The text will often say 'so and so shot down Bf109' when it apparently really means 'so and so claimed Bf109, we don't have the actual German losses for this particular case'. This is what Frank Olynyk, author and expert on US victory credits and contributor to some of Shores' books, told me. I started to count up case by case the combats in 'Desert' but was confused by the wording about many combats, and gave up getting an accurate result once I heard that answer. Assuming you were counting all those ambiguous references to Bf109 losses (I don't know how to make judgement calls distingushing them), I think we can assume the 109's ratio was better than those counts. From what I've heard it's also true of "Tunisia" and that's why Shores plans to write updated books on both campaigns.

Joe
 
=JoeB;633142
Assuming you were counting all those ambiguous references to Bf109 losses (I don't know how to make judgement calls distingushing them), I think we can assume the 109's ratio was better than those counts. From what I've heard it's also true of "Tunisia" and that's why Shores plans to write updated books on both campaigns.

Joe

no. I don't count ambiguous references. I only counted the verified losses per the source. "Verified" means the source states that the plane/pilot in question went down. I never count "claims" listed in Shores books for some of the reasons you cited, it would make the totals too subjective. I've developed a pretty consistant system in the 11+ Shores books collected, along with other authors who document specific air battles. Perfect? no.....which is what i always list my figures as "estimates."

If anything the ratio is more likely to be more kind to the Allied side though it is also possible that some German losses might have been missed. Shores is not perfect and neither am i. FoT[unisia] is a good example. Shores admits from the get go that one problem in using the Deutsches Dienststelle WAST in Berlin as the primary source on German losses is that it's based on daily German casualty lists. To be recorded into this list one has to have been injured to some degree. If a German pilot bailed out or crash landed and then walked or was driven back to his unit....he might not have ended up in the list.

As such....as Shores says, its more than probably that a % of the claims made by Allied pilots in "Tunisia" were legit. Nevertheless for consistancy purposes.....i did not count the claims unless verified by the German sources just as i do for his other books and other authors such as Lundstrom.
 
no. I don't count ambiguous references. I only counted the verified losses per the source. "Verified" means the source states that the plane/pilot in question went down. I never count "claims" listed in Shores books for some of the reasons you cited, it would make the totals too subjective. I've developed a pretty consistant system in the 11+ Shores books collected, along with other authors who document specific air battles. Perfect? no.....which is what i always list my figures as "estimates."

If anything the ratio is more likely to be more kind to the Allied side though it is also possible that some German losses might have been missed. Shores is not perfect and neither am i. FoT[unisia] is a good example. Shores admits from the get go that one problem in using the Deutsches Dienststelle WAST in Berlin as the primary source on German losses is that it's based on daily German casualty lists. To be recorded into this list one has to have been injured to some degree. If a German pilot bailed out or crash landed and then walked or was driven back to his unit....he might not have ended up in the list.

As such....as Shores says, its more than probably that a % of the claims made by Allied pilots in "Tunisia" were legit. Nevertheless for consistancy purposes.....i did not count the claims unless verified by the German sources just as i do for his other books and other authors such as Lundstrom.
In trying to count by my method, I gave up as end of 1941 in 'Desert' with ? for the German side in most cases, and many cases where the narrative said 'shot down' not 'claimed' about Axis losses but gave no further details. Just as one random example flipping around, not a 109 but pg. 70, 28 Nov 1941 it says: "Lt. Moolman shot down a Bf110', not 'claimed', but there are no details which Bf110. The impression I've gotten from someone who knows Shores is that in the early book, he meant 'claimed and taken as valid lacking contradictory info', because there were so many holes in the German loss data he had (and he had little at all about the Italians back then, 1969). And he was just developing his style, and finding out how complete a story could be told, I personally suppose, also.

I don't have 'Tunisia' but based on the general picture in 'Fw190 in North Africa' by Arthy and Jessen, a much more recent book (Tunisia was published in 1975), written using primary sources and German published works which became available more recently, a less than 2:1 kill ratio of Bf109's v USAAF/French P-40F's in Tunisia seems remarkably favorable to the P-40's. I assume its possibly a result of confusion of the narrative style of Tunisia v Shores' later books, which makes some Allied claims sound like actual German losses, which perhaps were not.

So, I am not raising this as criticism of Shores generally or books presenting opposing air combat accounts generally, and surely not of you, but a problem with those particular books. Though even in general of course the interesting question is where the info in such books comes from originally and how gaps in it are treated in the narrative or footnotes (which unfortunately Shores/his publishers have seldom included in any of his writing). I've looked into Shores' et al sources for 'Bloody Shambles' for example, on Japanese side, which tends to be what's contentious, and feel pretty comfortable how that book deals wit that info and the gaps in it. Similarly Lundstrom. I haven't done the same kind of poking into Desert or German sources generally, but from what I've heard and ambiguities as I see it in the text, I think we can compute less accurate quantiative results from that book compared to others' of Shores and of same genre by some other authors.

Joe
 
Last edited:
I don't have 'Tunisia' but based on the general picture in 'Fw190 in North Africa' by Arthy and Jessen, a much more recent book (Tunisia was published in 1975), written using primary sources and German published works which became available more recently, a less than 2:1 kill ratio of Bf109's v USAAF/French P-40F's in Tunisia seems remarkably favorable to the P-40's.

Not when one considers the different conditions by which the USAAF P40's operated in Tunisia. According to pilots in JG77, they found that while they could still pick off Kittyhawks fairly easily, it was found that American Warhawks were flown with a skill that prevented their losses from ever reaching the levels suffered by some RAF units. The level of committment of the American P40's was also less in Tunsia than that seen in 'Desert' under the Commonwealth.
 
I was unable to find specific charts for roll rates of the 109, but much of what i've read on contemporary Spitfires says they were about the same.

Remarkably, the high speed rate of roll for both planes (spit and 109) drops off considerably above 300mph (IAS).

The 109E takes about 2 seconds to roll 45 degrees at 300mph and about 4 seconds to roll 45 degrees at 400mph.
Spitfire Mk I versus Me 109 E


I'm not sure how the F and G stand in this category, but i would think the airframes are very similar.
Maybe someone could shed some light here perhaps a roll chart of the different variants.


Now on to the P-40.

Its max rate of roll is achieved at 285mph (ias) where it rolls at 110 degrees per second. (10,000ft)
That would be about 220 degrees in two seconds.
Whats interesting is that it was tested against other planes using 30 lbs of stick force, however maximum deflection was attained with just 19.5 pounds of stick force.

I might think the P-40 to be a very effective fighter in the roll axis even at high speeds, in fact very little effort would be required to maneuver in this regard in comparison to the 109 and Spitifre.

http://www.raafwarbirds.org.au/targetvraaf/p40_archive/pdfs/Allied AC rollrate.pdf

It was also mentioned that although heavier stick forces were felt with the Spitfire and Hurricane, they had lighter and more responsive stick movements at lower deflections. In other words, 5lbs of stick force would get you more roll from a Spitfire than a P-40, but 30lbs of stick force would not match the roll performance of the P-40 using less than 20lbs of stick force at speeds above 160mph.

The article also goes on to describe the P-36 and mechanical differences to the P-40. In effect, the P-40 stick travels a little further but with less force in comparison to the P-36.

A side note:

Also found the P-40D was fitted with 20mm cannons but never used operationally.



Bill
 
It will never cease to amaze me that the USA never got their 20mm cannons to work, with so many viable options to fix them.
 
Interesting comment there Clay, any reason why they didnt push the 20mm, I was fortunate many years ago to talk with a German pilot who flew 109,s and he said "the machine can be a technical marvel, but if the pilot is not then why have it made" I think that comment boils down to the machine is only as good as the pilot.
 
Interesting comment there Clay, any reason why they didnt push the 20mm, I was fortunate many years ago to talk with a German pilot who flew 109,s and he said "the machine can be a technical marvel, but if the pilot is not then why have it made" I think that comment boils down to the machine is only as good as the pilot.
arrogantly refusing to use the suggestions the British made on how to make the Hispano work, also seemingly zero interest in exploring cannon options outside of the Hispano. Probably a lot of people taking the ".50s are good enough" line and dragging their feet on progress, regardless of the fact that the M2 weighed a ton and didn't have any HE rounds.
 
I do not believe the the US was ever in need of the 20mm. The .50s were more than enough to bring down 109s and 190s. The German's needed heavier weapons that were more suited for killing bombers. If the US would have had to contend with large streams of heavy bombers, they certainly would have used heavier armament.
 
I do not believe the the US was ever in need of the 20mm. The .50s were more than enough to bring down 109s and 190s. The German's needed heavier weapons that were more suited for killing bombers. If the US would have had to contend with large streams of heavy bombers, they certainly would have used heavier armament.
Firepower/Weight ratio on the M2 is pathetic. It's a very heavy gun for what it delivers, weighing 2/3 as much as the hispano for 1/3 the destructive power, the power/weight ratio on the ammo actually sucks since it relies on lead rather than high explosive.

If we had a lighter .50 like the Berezin UB or MG 131 I'd be fine with it. The M2 is a ground weapon, heavy and rugged and square. It is mediocre in the air at best.
 
Last edited:
Firepower/Weight ratio on the M2 is pathetic. It's a very heavy gun for what it delivers, weighing 2/3 as much as the hispano for 1/3 the destructive power, the power/weight ratio on the ammo actually sucks since it relies on lead rather than high explosive.

If we had a lighter .50 like the Berezin UB or MG 131 I'd be fine with it. The M2 is a ground weapon, heavy and rugged and square. It is mediocre in the air at best.

I agree with you that it was not the best choice, but it served its purpose just fine. For an Air Force whos main adversary was a single engined fighter, having a fighter with 8 .50s did the job just fine. There was no need to have 20mm or highter to counter the fighter threat.

To use a lighter version of the weapon obviously would have been better, but as I said there was no need for the USAAF to fit its fighters with heavy caliber weapons.

That is all I am saying...
 
I agree with you that it was not the best choice, but it served its purpose just fine. For an Air Force whos main adversary was a single engined fighter, having a fighter with 8 .50s did the job just fine. There was no need to have 20mm or highter to counter the fighter threat.

To use a lighter version of the weapon obviously would have been better, but as I said there was no need for the USAAF to fit its fighters with heavy caliber weapons.

That is all I am saying...
2x20mm cannons would provide the same firepower as a 6x.50 battery at a huge weight savings (about half the total weapons weight), that's what I'm saying. Also, 4x20mm on the heavy fighters (like the P-47, F6F, F4U, P-38 ) would have been a big force multiplier when attacking ground targets.
 
This topic has been argued on this forum for years and Chris has nailed it as far as I am concerned. All things considered, the 50 BMG was the correct weapon for use in American fighters. The US mostly used it's fighters against Axis fighters and the reliability, flat trajectory, large amount of ammo carried which gave a lot of firing time, the hitting power of the cartridge against lightly armored AC, the large numbers of 50 BMGs carried along with the high rate of fire,(compared to cannon) which made it easier to get hits, all contributed to the efficacy of the 50 BMG. It was simpler in terms of logistics also. The bombers carried mostly 50s and the fighters also. Undoubtedly, for the expert marks man, a few cannon with a lower rate of fire and shorter firing time, would have been more lethal but most pilots were not expert gunners. This has not been discussed here before, AFIK, but I read in Shaw,
"Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering," that many less than stellar gunners from the US, in WW2, had their guns harmonised, rather than to converge at around 300 yards, had them adjusted to give somewhat of a box pattern, a lttle like a shotgun at an appropriate range. A few hits from a 50 BMG on an enemy fighter was often enough to damage or disable that fighter. The F4U1B and later the F4U4B, as well as some F6Fs came from the factory with four or two 20 MMs but apparently they were not viewed as an improvement. The later F4U5N which was a night fighter to be used against bombers all had four 20 mms.
 
There's a couple other factors at play regarding the 20mm and the M2.
I think in the time frame we are speaking of, (allied) cannons were slower firing both in rate and velocity which tended to favor the M2 for air to air combat other than hitting bigger targets like bombers. You can look at weight of fire statistics and all the jargon that accompanies such comparisons but the fact remains if you can't hit what you're shooting at then the HE rounds are less effective.
You can have six streams of bullets fireing at a higher rate and losing less velocity than 2 streams that fire at a lower rate and lose more velocity. So not only do you have more streams of bullets but better arch and range for air to air combat.

Difference is that when a couple HE rounds land they do much more damage, but I have to think that it also came down to the fact that most aircraft were vulnerable to machine gun fire alone.

I agree if the US had to face a heavy bomber threat then cannons would've seen more service. I dont think the P-40 could ever be decribed as an interceptor so maybe thats why the idea of cannons was left alone.


I was hoping to get back on topic, perhaps if someone had some roll rate figures for the 109, particularly the F or early G series so at least so the comparison can pertain to the P-40,
So far much of the roll performance suggests very poor roll response at higher speeds along with low elevator authority because of the 109s short stick throw, however numbers are not too specific other than what i found at SpitfirePerformance.com


Bill
 
There's a couple other factors at play regarding the 20mm and the M2.
I think in the time frame we are speaking of, (allied) cannons were slower firing both in rate and velocity which tended to favor the M2 for air to air combat other than hitting bigger targets like bombers. You can look at weight of fire statistics and all the jargon that accompanies such comparisons but the fact remains if you can't hit what you're shooting at then the HE rounds are less effective.
You can have six streams of bullets fireing at a higher rate and losing less velocity than 2 streams that fire at a lower rate and lose more velocity. So not only do you have more streams of bullets but better arch and range for air to air combat.

Difference is that when a couple HE rounds land they do much more damage, but I have to think that it also came down to the fact that most aircraft were vulnerable to machine gun fire alone.

I agree if the US had to face a heavy bomber threat then cannons would've seen more service. I dont think the P-40 could ever be decribed as an interceptor so maybe thats why the idea of cannons was left alone.


I was hoping to get back on topic, perhaps if someone had some roll rate figures for the 109, particularly the F or early G series so at least so the comparison can pertain to the P-40,
So far much of the roll performance suggests very poor roll response at higher speeds along with low elevator authority because of the 109s short stick throw, however numbers are not too specific other than what i found at SpitfirePerformance.com


Bill

Early in the war the M2 was firing at 450-500 rpm, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think the AN/M2 was available until mid-war.

None of that changes the fact that the M2 was unforgivably heavy (38 Kg). German 13.1(16.6 kg), Japanese 12.7(23kg), and Russian 12.7(21.5 kg), Italian 12.7(29Kg) were all lighter and all had HE ammo.
 
Early in the war the M2 was firing at 450-500 rpm, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think the AN/M2 was available until mid-war.

None of that changes the fact that the M2 was unforgivably heavy (38 Kg). German 13.1(16.6 kg), Japanese 12.7(23kg), and Russian 12.7(21.5 kg), Italian 12.7(29Kg) were all lighter and all had HE ammo.

The Early and mid war .50s could fire at about 600rpm (not much different than the Hispano) in free firing installations. The synchronized guns however were down near 400-450rpm as you say. I don't believe there were many late war synchronized guns (P-63?).

The extra weight of the American .50 did allow for higher velocity compared to the axis guns which did make defection shooting easier.
 
To me the following is a pretty good analogy of the cannon-50 BMG topic. A hunter who hunts doves will probably choose size seven and a half shot shell. The reason he does that is that he knows that a few solid hits with 7.5 shot will bring down a dove. A hunter who hunts geese will probably choose size two shot shell because a few solid hits with a size 2 will bring down a goose. Those size twos will bring down a dove also but the pattern is not very dense and a dove can fly though a pattern of twos at thirty yards and only lose a few feathers. Conversely size 7.5 shot will bring down a goose but the range has to either be very close, before the pattern opens up, so that a bunch of solid hits are made or else a lucky pellet hits a vital place. The pattern of a seven and a half is dense enough at thirty yards or even a little further that a dove cannot fly through the pattern without taking some hits.

Now the 20 mm cannon has a ROF of about ten rounds a second, so if a four cannon armed fighter fires a two second burst. he has sent 80 rounds down range at the target. A lucky hit with any of those rounds can bring down a fighter but more probably it will take several hits to be lethal. The 50 BMG has a ROF of about 15 rounds per second and a six gun fighter in a two second burst will then send 180 rounds down range at the target. The 50 BMG round is not as lethal as the 20 mm but still one lucky hit can bring down a fighter and he is far more likely to get hits with 180 rounds in the target vicinity than with only 80 rounds. The fighter is like the dove, which does not take a lot of lead to bring down. On the other hand a bomber is much more rugged, like a goose, and also a much bigger slower target, like a goose. It takes more killing but the pattern does not have to be as dense because the target is slow and big. Another factor is that the P51A with four 20 mm cannon carried 125 rounds per gun which gave it a firing time of 12.5 seconds or slightly more than six two second bursts. The P51D with six 50 BMGs carried 313 rounds per gun which gave it a firing time of 20.9 seconds or slightly more than ten two second bursts. The argument favoring the 50 BMG for fighter versus fighter combat seems clear to me.
 
I agree, and that is why I said that the armament was perfect for what the USAAF needed. If heavy bombers had been the main target, then the armament would have been adjusted accordingly. Just look at how the Bf 109s armament evolved from the beginning of the war when the LW was on the offensive fighting mostly against fighter opposition, to the mid to later war years when it was mostly up against the large allied heavy bomber streams.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back