F4F Wildcat versus P-40E Tomahawk

[renrich]

I don't believe that a comparison between the F4F3 and the P40B is an open and shut case at all. In Dean, the FM2 which would be roughly equivalent to the F4F3 is the best turning fighter the US had.(the P40 was not rated) The Wildcat would be much superior in rate of climb. The throw weight of the Wildcat guns would be superior if the P40 had two 50s and four 30s and IMO the Wildcat would be much more survivable in a fight. The P40 would be faster and would have a better roll rate. I have read a Wildcat could stay with a 109 in a dive so don't know about that.

[HoHun]

Hi Renrich,

>I don't believe that a comparison between the F4F3 and the P40B is an open and shut case at all. In Dean, the FM2 which would be roughly equivalent to the F4F3 is the best turning fighter the US had.

The history of WW2 air fighter development shows that turn rate was the one performance parameter that consistently deteriorated while all other performance parameters were improved.

Obviously, turn rate was of secondary (or tertiary) importance.

The most important performance parameter was speed, and the P-40B holds an large advantage over the F4F-3 in that regard, while the P-40E holds an even larger advantage over the F4F-4.

>The Wildcat would be much superior in rate of climb.

Actually, if you look at the graphs, the F4F-3 has only a slight advantage over the P-40B, and depending on the boost used by the P-40E, the F4F-4 is about equal or much inferior at least at low to medium altitude.

Even for the F4F-3, the slight climb rate advantage over the P-40B is not going to help much - with perhaps 1.5 m/s climb advantage, you can calculate for yourself how long it takes to gain a useful altitude advantage in a fight.

>I have read a Wildcat could stay with a 109 in a dive so don't know about that.

Hm ... the FM-2 manual gives a terminal velocity of 685 km/h indicated airspeed, while the Pilot's Notes for the Tomahawk published by Dan Ford gives 740 km/h indicated for the P-40.

By the way, these Pilot's Notes give the maximum boost pressure permitted for 5 min as 38.9" Hg above 2600 ft and 41" Hg at sea level. My figures for the P-40B are based on 37.2" Hg - obviously, the P-40B would gain some performance if it used the higher boosts.

Of course, it's always possible to find some superior characteristics in an otherwise inferior fighter, but one should not lose sight of the overall picture when one has found these. The question always is, "What are these worth?"

Eric Brown in "Wings of the Navy" points out that the US Navy had learnt from the European combat experience "that speed, climb rate, adequate firepower and armour protection, pilot visibility, and manoeuvrability were primary requirements in *that* order." (Original emphasis.)

With regard to the original question of the F4F-4 vs. the P-40E, the winner is:

1) P-40E
2) P-40E (if it uses 56" Hg)
3) Tie
4) Tie
5) Tie
6) F4F-4

You could argue some of the lower priority points, but I could include diving capability in "manoeuvrability" and argue the least-priority point, too. You could also look at altitudes above 5 km where the P-40E loses the climb advantage, which of course has a tactical impact - this is exactly why I provide these graphs.

However you cut it though, in the end the P-40E has a significant advantage in the highest priority aspect which gives it a considerable headstart over the F4F-4, and the advantages the F4F-4 has are nowhere near as significant in magnitude.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[renrich]

Not to split hairs but the original question in the poll was F4F3 versus Tomahawk. All Tomahawks would only include H81A-1, H81B, H81A-2, H81B, H81A-3 which is only through P-40C. I don't put a lot of faith in Eric Brown's testimony as he intimates that the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM which is at odds with every other authority I know of.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Not to split hairs but the original question in the poll was F4F3 versus Tomahawk. All Tomahawks would only include H81A-1, H81B, H81A-2, H81B, H81A-3 which is only through P-40C. I don't put a lot of faith in Eric Brown's testimony as he intimates that the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM which is at odds with every other authority I know of.

I agree your points

[HoHun]

Hi Renrich,

>Not to split hairs but the original question in the poll was F4F3 versus Tomahawk.

It's always crucial to be precise in the designation as every sub-variants tends to have its own set of characteristics ... it's doubly crucial when Pong sets us up for a misunderstanding by asking for the P-40E both in the thread title and his initial post, but not in the poll option itself ... :-)

>I don't put a lot of faith in Eric Brown's testimony as he intimates that the Hellcat was superior to the Corsair in ACM which is at odds with every other authority I know of.

His quote provides the key to assessing fighters: Not all characteristics are of equal importance, and for fighter-vs.-fighter combat the order of importance is universal.

With regard to performance parameters, speed-climb-turn certainly is the order I consider realistic, too - with the importance curve dropping rather steeply.

If you'd come up with another order of importance, that would lead to a different assessment of the considered fighters ... not that every possible order would be equally valid, but we'd have a sensible starting point for a discussion then :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Juha]

HoHun
Quote:"With regard to performance parameters, speed-climb-turn certainly is the order I consider realistic, too - with the importance curve dropping rather steeply."

I'm not so sure that the importance curve dropping rather steeply. Faster fighter might well be in trouble with better climber with better turning ability.
In combat the idea is IMHO firstly to try to achieve surprise and secondly to try to force the combat so that one could utilise one's plane strong points against other's plane weak points. Better climber has a possibility to achieve the height advance before the beginning of actual combat. And many times the mission exclude the possibility to disengage when you wish.

[renrich]

Henning, I don't argue that some models of the P40 had better performance on paper than some models of the Wildcat. I do believe that performance on paper is not necessarily proof of operational superiority. I also believe, because I have heard experienced military pilots say it, that in WW2 a 15 or 20 mph Vmax difference is not tactically significant. Then you get into what altitude what Vmax is measured. It all makes for interesting discussions but not always to correct conclusions. To make things even more interesting, both the P40 and Wildcat had quite a few different versions since they served throughout the war. In the pacific theatre the F4F had 1408 kills, the P40 had 661. That looks clearly like a big edge for the F4F. The P40 had 741 kills in the CBI which evens things out. It could be that the F4F faced a better grade of fighter and pilot in the pacific than the P40 faced in the CBI. My gut tells me that if the model of Wildcat and P40 were contemporaneous the winner between the two would be based on pilot skill and maybe Lady Luck.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Henning, I don't argue that some models of the P40 had better performance on paper than some models of the Wildcat. I do believe that performance on paper is not necessarily proof of operational superiority. I also believe, because I have heard experienced military pilots say it, that in WW2 a 15 or 20 mph Vmax difference is not tactically significant. Then you get into what altitude what Vmax is measured. It all makes for interesting discussions but not always to correct conclusions. To make things even more interesting, both the P40 and Wildcat had quite a few different versions since they served throughout the war. In the pacific theatre the F4F had 1408 kills, the P40 had 661. That looks clearly like a big edge for the F4F. The P40 had 741 kills in the CBI which evens things out. It could be that the F4F faced a better grade of fighter and pilot in the pacific than the P40 faced in the CBI. My gut tells me that if the model of Wildcat and P40 were contemporaneous the winner between the two would be based on pilot skill and maybe Lady Luck.

Rich - the guys (like 49th FG) flying out of Darwin, then Dobudura and Port Moresby were fighting guys like Saburo Sakai, and other top Japanese aces out of Lae and Salamaua. No evidence that they were lesser talents or odds.

Having said that, New Guinea was also the prime Center of gravity for the USAAF whereas Wildcat was everywhere else until late 1943 as first line USN fighter from Carriers and also land based until replaced by F4U.. and the AF PTO Fighter strength was was also diluted with the Iron Dog, then replaced by the P-38 while facing the Japanese in the Pacific.

I would also suspect the P-40 faced a lot more fighters but don't have much proof for that statement right now.

I don't have a particular preference between the P-40 E and the F4F-4 or 6 but tend to lean to the P-40 based on speed and damn good agility. In my opinion the Zero was a better all around fighter than both of them, but 'less better' than the P-40E

[HoHun]

Hi Juha,

>In combat the idea is IMHO firstly to try to achieve surprise and secondly to try to force the combat so that one could utilise one's plane strong points against other's plane weak points.

The problem is that if you're facing faster aircraft, you will have a hard time forcing them to fight so that you can utilize your strengths. And in the end, air combat comes down to a war of attrition ...

>Better climber has a possibility to achieve the height advance before the beginning of actual combat.

This doesn't mean that it will always have the height advantage though - it just means that it has a chance to outclimb the opponent if he is spotted in time. Much of the initial height separation is determined by the initial mission setup. (Though of course some missions - like the interceptor's - are actually based on the type's climb rate.)

>And many times the mission exclude the possibility to disengage when you wish.

Modern air combat terminology actually discriminates "disengaging" and "extending", and extending means just to create enough separation that the fight can be re-entered immediately.

Additionally, mission planning had to take into account the strengths of the fighter aircraft, too. That is one reason Galland demanded "a squadron of Spitfires" from Göring - the Me 109's strengths were not suited for close escort, where they'd get attacked by the more manoeuvrable Spitfires. The Me 109 could only achieve its mission goal - protection of the bombers - if it was given some freedom to play its strengths by seeking out the RAF formations before they attacked. (And that would not have been much different if Galland had gotten his "squadron of Spitfires" - they would just have reduced his losses a bit if dived upon.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[renrich]

If memory serves, the P40 and Wildcat flew escort missions together during the Guadalcananl campaign in late 42 and early 43, before the Corsair arrived to relieve the Wildcat. What I meant when talking about lesser pilots and AC was that the Japanese Army pilots and AC might have met that definition in the CBI. The P40 certainly went against the cream of the crop at PH, the Philipines, and the campaigns around Java, Australia, New Guinea and in the Solomons. However, the P40 did not have a lot of success during this period of the war. The various models of the Wildcat held it's own, including the F4F4. The F4F4 was the doggiest Wildcat. I repeat that some of the Navy pilots said it flew like a loaded torpedo plane. Not exactly high praise. The F4F3 and FM2 had more sprightly performance.

[Soren]

The Spitfire & Bf-109 were equally maneuverable, so that wasn't the reason behind the losses (Which were still fewer than RAF fighters). The reason behind the losses was that the Spitfires were allowed to dive down upon the entire bomber stream without any escorts facing them up there. The Bf-109 should've been sued as high escort instead of flying alongside the bombers, a big mistake.

[B-17engineer]

I am going to go with the P-40e. Very good plane it was fast for its time. Good armament and was rugged

[HoHun]

Hi Renrich,

>I also believe, because I have heard experienced military pilots say it, that in WW2 a 15 or 20 mph Vmax difference is not tactically significant.

Oh well - that's probably a psychology thing. If you have read "The Right Stuff", you'll be aware that the mindset of the successful pilot requries the awareness of having everything under control. "It's the man, not the machine" could really be the fighter pilots' motto.

However, in reality every technological difference is significant. Even Chuck Yeager, who is famous his "It's the man, not the machine", had his F-86F engine tuned by the crew chief to exceed the redline temperature in order to yield a little bit more trust and make him more competitive (against his USAF buddies - this was in cold-war Germany).

>Then you get into what altitude what Vmax is measured.

Hm, that's actually clearly indicated in the graphs.

>My gut tells me that if the model of Wildcat and P40 were contemporaneous the winner between the two would be based on pilot skill and maybe Lady Luck.

If you're thinking of a a traditional staged co-altitude duel, passing each other once before commencing to turn, that might be right - the faster aircraft usually doesn't look good in this kind of comparison. As Galland reported, the Heinkel He 51 easily won such a duel against the Me 109 prototype. However, there should be little doubt that the Me 109 was a far superior fighter anyway ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[renrich]

Once again the P40E was not a Tomahawk. I believe that the fighter pilot that said that was referring to the fact that ACM is seldom fought at Vmax. Henning, If you have not had the pleasure yet of reading Lundstrom, I surely hope you get to someday. Would that a writer would do the same for the AAF in the Pacific during the same period. I know you are weary of hearing this but one big advantage the Wildcat would have was the visibility to allow full deflection shooting. If I remember correctly, in the escort missions jointly flown by P40s and Wildcats in the Cactus force, the Wildcat was assigned the high cover because it had superior high altitude performance with it's two speed, two stage supercharger. An interesting aside which shows the importance of gunnery practise and deflection shooting. I was watching on the military or history channel a feature on Dick Bong. He was flying the P38 which had good visibility over the nose. On his first tour he said he could only execute firing runs from either the six o clock or head on positions. When sent back to the states (I think for war bonds duty) he had a lot of instruction in deflection shooting and he came back in theater a much better and more effective gunner.

[HoHun]

Hi Renrich,

>Once again the P40E was not a Tomahawk.

Well, the comments in my previous post were quite independend of the actual subvariant.

However, I feel obliged to point out that Pong, who started the thread, referred to:

- "P-40E Tomahawk" in the thread title
- "P-40E" in his original post
- "P-40 Tomahawk" in the poll option.

That's enough for me to consider the P-40E "on topic" here.

>I believe that the fighter pilot that said that was referring to the fact that ACM is seldom fought at Vmax.

Well, that might be a misconception. Here is a revealing comment by the British aerodynamicist Sir Morien Morgan:

"Looking back, I think that the greatest problem at the end of the 1930s was that it was extremely difficult to visualise what combat would be like in the new monoplane fighters; the only air fighting experts we had were from the First World War and that had been twenty years ealier. I think we all paid too much attention to the behaviour of an aerplane flying on a calm sunny day and harmonising the controls so that they could do nice aerobatic displays; we seemed to miss the importance of handling at speeds around the maximum permissable, in fast dives. Before the war, I remember, people thought that it was rather an academic exercise to scream downhill at one's maximum permissable speed.

The war soon brought us face to face with reality: once our fighter pilots started to mix it with the enemy they found that their main adversary, the Messerschmitt 109 which was less manoeuverable than the Spitfire, simply refused to dogfight in the manner expected; any German pilot who tried it did not live very long. Frequently the fight would develop into a diving race, either trying to 'bounce' the other fellow from out of the sun, or else trying to get away after being 'bounced'. And with the early Spitfires as one neared 400 mph the ailerons became heavier and heavier, until at 430 mph the pilot needed all the strength of both hands to get about on tenth aileron movement. In an air combat this was a crippling defect: if one was diving on an enemy the idea was to fire at him on the way down, and the poor aileron control made this very difficult."

(From Alfred Price, "Spitfire - a Complete Fighting History", p. 93 f)

To sum it up, the lesson learned by the RAF in WW2 was that "ACM" routinely took place even beyond the top speeds of the aircraft involved.

A top speed advantage is just what you need when it comes to "refusing to dogfight in the manner expected".

>I know you are weary of hearing this but one big advantage the Wildcat would have was the visibility to allow full deflection shooting.

Well, what kind of visibility did the F4F actually offer? From a diagram in Frederick A. Johnsen's "Republic P-47 Thunderbolt" (Warbird Tech Series Volume 23), the P-40N had a visibility angle of 50 mil below the gunsight line.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)