P-39 vs P-40

[Schweik]

Interesting, well 1,325 hp is pretty good. WEP at low altitude is probably a bit better.

As for the weight issue, I"m not sure I buy that the P-39 and P-40 were overweight, but I think they were initially underpowered which is not quite the same thing. Almost every pilot agrees that P-40s were plenty maneuverable and had no problem pulling tight turns. The wing loading was pretty low at least by ETO / MTO standards. The engines weren't that powerful though for a heavier fighter.

We perhaps tend to forget how many very heavy aircraft did well in the war. Normal loaded weight for a P-40 was between 7,600 lbs / 3450 kg (early Tomahawk) and around 8,400 (P-40K). P-39 was a bit less at around 7,000 - 7,500 lbs.

It's true that there were a lot of much lighter fighters around - the Ki-43 and A6M, the earlier Fiat and Macchi series, the Bf 109 and most of the Soviet fighters, Due to their light weight and powerful engines they had high power / mass ratios usually meaning good climb and acceleration. The Spitfire Mk V for example had a loaded weight of 6,240 with a 1,470 hp engine for a power ratio of 0.23. Later versions were even better. The A6M2 /21 had a ratio of 0.18 and the Bf 109F had a ratio of 0.17 at military power (1200 hp) or 0.19 (1305 hp)

But there were also a lot of comparatively heavy fighters that also did quite well. I listed a few of the wars more successful (but heavy) day fighters with their "normal loaded" weights, engine power and power-weight ratio. This is quickly googled by the way so there may be errors, don't crucify me for it, most of these are from wikipedia or whatever credible looking site I could find. I got the 109F and Spit V stats from this site.

Fw 190A-8 was 9,400 lbs loaded (but with a 1,677 hp engine) - 0.20 hp / lb power ratio
Hawker Typhoon was 11,400 lbs loaded (with a 2,200 hp engine) - 0.21 hp / lb power ratio
Hawker Tempest V was also 11,400 lbs loaded (with a 2,180 hp engine) / 0.21 hp / lb power ratio
F4U-1 Corsair was 11,878 lbs loaded (with a 2,000 hp engine) - 0.175 hp / lb power ratio
F6F-5 Hellcat was 12,598 loaded (wtih 2,200 hp engine) - 0.16 hp / lb power ratio
Kawanishi N1K1-J was 8,820 lbs loaded (with an 1,850 hp engine) - .226 hp / lb power ratio
Ki-61-I-KAIc was 7,650 lb loaded (with an 1,159 hp engine) - 0.15 hp / lb power ratio
P-38L was 17,500 lbs loaded (with two ,1600 hp horsepower engines) - 0.16 hp / lb power ratio
P-47D-30 was 12,731 loaded (with a 2,600 hp engine) - 0.20 hp / lb power ratio
P-51D was 9,200 loaded (with a 1,490 hp engine) - 0.16 hp / lb power ratio but! The wiki also notes 1,720 hp at WEP for a much better 0.18 hp / lb

So the useful range for power-mass seems to be from 0.15 to 0.20 or better.

Now to compare with the P-39 and P-40. First note that the P-40 is on the lower end of the above list of fighters range in terms of weight, and the P-39 is lighter than all of the above accept the Ki-61.

P-39 at military power (1,200 hp) was at 0.16 power/mass but if you at that at rated "takeoff" power of 1325 it's 0.176 which is a bit better. I suspect they could boost that engine higher though at least at low altitude though I don't know how much.

P-40s are as follows

P-40B Tomahawk was 7,326 lbs loaded (with 1040 hp engine) for a power ratio of 0.16 which isn't great but isn't terrible either. It's as good as a Hellcat.
P-40E was 8,280 lbs loaded (with 1,150 hp engine) for a power ratio of 0.14. However WEP was 1,470 hp (56" Hg) which brings it to 0.17 which is pretty decent. Close to a Corsair.
P-40K was 8,500 lbs loaded (with a 1,325 hp engine) for a ratio of 0.155 but at WEP (1,550 hp at 60" Hg) it was 0.18 which is pretty good.
P-40F was 8,480 lbs loaded (with 1,300 hp engine) for a ratio of 0.15 but at WEP (1435 hp) it was 0.16
P-40L was 8,020 lbs loaded (with the same 1,300 hp engine) for 0.16 and 0.17 respectively.

So in a nutshell, the P-40s were right on the edge of having sufficient power, you can see why they stripped some weight out when they could, and why they tinkered with the engines to get more speed out. If the overboosting stories are true and they really did go all of the way up to 1,700 hp tat would put a P-40K at a power ratio of 0.20 which is quite good. Also, compared to many fighters it faced in Europe, the P-40 had long range and carried a lot of fuel. By the time it reached a target on an escort or fighter sweep mission it would be lighter compared to enemy fighters taking off to attack them. Also the P-40 had very good dive speed and dive acceleration so experienced pilots could use that to keep it's speed up.

One other thing about the above list which is part of the issue I think with peoples opinions on certain planes - the same stats tend to get repeated over and over and as we know, Wikipedia isn't exactly superb in terms of signal to noise ratio or reliability. One of the specific issues on WW2 fighters is that they quote different types of numbers for engine horsepower and then provide all kinds of other stats behind that. So for example for one aircraft they show hp at 10,000 ft for another at sea level or for takeoff, for one they show military rating for another HP on boost. So you often aren't even comparing like with like.

P-40 and P-39 engines are often quoted at their takeoff or military power settings. Which makes them look even more underpowered. The Allison V-1710-39 on the P-40E is usually shown as giving 1,150 which is rated power at 45.5" Hg. But the WEP setting was later set at 56" (1,470 hp) and it was apparently routine to operate at 60" Hg (for 1,550 hp) which is a very big difference. It takes it from a dismal power ratio of 0.14 to a respectable 0.18.

So maybe this aircraft is a bit of a dog up high, but an experienced pilot can get it moving pretty well at least down low which could come as a nasty surprise

The extra HP was also apparently built into the strategy developed by the DAF from 1942 of "turning into the attack" meaning whole squadrons would wheel around and face diving enemy fighters. They really couldn't do this earlier before they "got our Kittyhawks running properly " to quote Bobby Gibbes. I don't think it was even an option in early 1942 when they were suffering much heavier losses.

Anyway, I know it's a big data dump, it's obviously something I'm quite interested in and would like to get right. Hope others may find it interesting.

 

[wuzak]

So in a nutshell, the P-40s were right on the edge of having sufficient power, you can see why they stripped some weight out when they could, and why they tinkered with the engines to get more speed out. If the overboosting stories are true and they really did go all of the way up to 1,700 hp tat would put a P-40K at a power ratio of 0.20 which is quite good. Also, compared to many fighters it faced in Europe, the P-40 had long range and carried a lot of fuel. By the time it reached a target on an escort or fighter sweep mission it would be lighter compared to enemy fighters taking off to attack them. Also the P-40 had very good dive speed and dive acceleration so experienced pilots could use that to keep it's speed up.

But at what altitude was that 1,700hp?

It's not much use having the best power-to-weight ratio at 0ft if it is quickly reduced to average, or worse, at the altitudes where it was expected to operate.

 

[Schweik]

But at what altitude was that 1,700hp?

It's not much use having the best power-to-weight ratio at 0ft if it is quickly reduced to average, or worse, at the altitudes where it was expected to operate.

1700 hp is probably very far down indeed, right on the deck no doubt. Boosting that high was probably very rare I would assume. But that doesn't mean it's useless. Dogfights often devolved to lower level fighting. Both escapes and pursuits can end up "on the deck" and in such a circumstance, for an Axis pilot used to a certain level of performance that could come as a nasty surprise I think. Certainly the anecdotal descriptions of combat describe a lot of such long chases and also specifically P-40 pilots using dives to disengage which is really important in surviving air combat (assuming you don't die in the initial bounce).

However for the not quite as high but still boosted levels apparently that higher HP can still be reached at medium altitude. For example these charts of the famous 'stripped' (7900 lb) early P-40N with the V-1710-115 show that it was able to maintain 57" Hg boost up to 6800 feet and 50.5" up to 10,000 feet, and that was still providing enough power for a climb rate of 3,270 fpm at 7500 ft and 2,930 fpm at 10,000 ft. In a second test 'Critical full throttle height' was indicated at 9,200 feet with 57" Hg for 352 mph, and still doing 352 mph at 10,000' with 55.25" Hg so presumably that is getting a fair amount of horsepower though I know they couldn't actually measure that.

P-40 Performance Tests
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/A29-412-climb-WEP.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/A29-412-level-speed-WEP.jpg

At Sea Level 57" Hg means just about 1,500 hp according to my sources. I don't know what it means at 9,000 feet.

I think that early P-40N probably outperforms most or all of the earlier Allison engined P-40s anyway so it's a bit of an outlier.

Maybe not V-1650 powered P-40F or L though. Anyway it seems like they had some pretty high power available still at 10,000 feet. I would assume therefore they didn't have to dive down to the deck to get some extra power and performance, as at 8-10,000 feet they were already getting a fairly good head of steam at WEP. But if they got into real trouble conceivably they could dive down to get even more, for example when being chased back to their base as sometimes happened (as was apparently routine tactic of the RAF's Allison engined P-51s using the same engines) or when chasing enemy fighters which were trying to disengage

In the Med their job was often escorting medium bombers to attack German and Italian air bases. This served two purposes - it meant that the fight was taking place at around 10,000 feet or less, since that was the typical cruising altitude of the A-20's and B-25's, Baltimores etc. they were escorting from what I gather (later B-26's too) and it forced the Axis fighters to engage (if they wanted to stop the bombers) which put them at a disadvantage

 

[P-39 Expert]

Interesting, well 1,325 hp is pretty good. WEP at low altitude is probably a bit better.

As for the weight issue, I"m not sure I buy that the P-39 and P-40 were overweight, but I think they were initially underpowered which is not quite the same thing. Almost every pilot agrees that P-40s were plenty maneuverable and had no problem pulling tight turns. The wing loading was pretty low at least by ETO / MTO standards. The engines weren't that powerful though for a heavier fighter.

We perhaps tend to forget how many very heavy aircraft did well in the war. Normal loaded weight for a P-40 was between 7,600 lbs / 3450 kg (early Tomahawk) and around 8,400 (P-40K). P-39 was a bit less at around 7,000 - 7,500 lbs.

It's true that there were a lot of much lighter fighters around - the Ki-43 and A6M, the earlier Fiat and Macchi series, the Bf 109 and most of the Soviet fighters, Due to their light weight and powerful engines they had high power / mass ratios usually meaning good climb and acceleration. The Spitfire Mk V for example had a loaded weight of 6,240 with a 1,470 hp engine for a power ratio of 0.23. Later versions were even better. The A6M2 /21 had a ratio of 0.18 and the Bf 109F had a ratio of 0.17 at military power (1200 hp) or 0.19 (1305 hp)

But there were also a lot of comparatively heavy fighters that also did quite well. I listed a few of the wars more successful (but heavy) day fighters with their "normal loaded" weights, engine power and power-weight ratio. This is quickly googled by the way so there may be errors, don't crucify me for it, most of these are from wikipedia or whatever credible looking site I could find. I got the 109F and Spit V stats from this site.

Fw 190A-8 was 9,400 lbs loaded (but with a 1,677 hp engine) - 0.20 hp / lb power ratio
Hawker Typhoon was 11,400 lbs loaded (with a 2,200 hp engine) - 0.21 hp / lb power ratio
Hawker Tempest V was also 11,400 lbs loaded (with a 2,180 hp engine) / 0.21 hp / lb power ratio
F4U-1 Corsair was 11,878 lbs loaded (with a 2,000 hp engine) - 0.175 hp / lb power ratio
F6F-5 Hellcat was 12,598 loaded (wtih 2,200 hp engine) - 0.16 hp / lb power ratio
Kawanishi N1K1-J was 8,820 lbs loaded (with an 1,850 hp engine) - .226 hp / lb power ratio
Ki-61-I-KAIc was 7,650 lb loaded (with an 1,159 hp engine) - 0.15 hp / lb power ratio
P-38L was 17,500 lbs loaded (with two ,1600 hp horsepower engines) - 0.16 hp / lb power ratio
P-47D-30 was 12,731 loaded (with a 2,600 hp engine) - 0.20 hp / lb power ratio
P-51D was 9,200 loaded (with a 1,490 hp engine) - 0.16 hp / lb power ratio but! The wiki also notes 1,720 hp at WEP for a much better 0.18 hp / lb

So the useful range for power-mass seems to be from 0.15 to 0.20 or better.

Now to compare with the P-39 and P-40. First note that the P-40 is on the lower end of the above list of fighters range in terms of weight, and the P-39 is lighter than all of the above accept the Ki-61.

P-39 at military power (1,200 hp) was at 0.16 power/mass but if you at that at rated "takeoff" power of 1325 it's 0.176 which is a bit better. I suspect they could boost that engine higher though at least at low altitude though I don't know how much.

P-40s are as follows

P-40B Tomahawk was 7,326 lbs loaded (with 1040 hp engine) for a power ratio of 0.16 which isn't great but isn't terrible either. It's as good as a Hellcat.
P-40E was 8,280 lbs loaded (with 1,150 hp engine) for a power ratio of 0.14. However WEP was 1,470 hp (56" Hg) which brings it to 0.17 which is pretty decent. Close to a Corsair.
P-40K was 8,500 lbs loaded (with a 1,325 hp engine) for a ratio of 0.155 but at WEP (1,550 hp at 60" Hg) it was 0.18 which is pretty good.
P-40F was 8,480 lbs loaded (with 1,300 hp engine) for a ratio of 0.15 but at WEP (1435 hp) it was 0.16
P-40L was 8,020 lbs loaded (with the same 1,300 hp engine) for 0.16 and 0.17 respectively.

So in a nutshell, the P-40s were right on the edge of having sufficient power, you can see why they stripped some weight out when they could, and why they tinkered with the engines to get more speed out. If the overboosting stories are true and they really did go all of the way up to 1,700 hp tat would put a P-40K at a power ratio of 0.20 which is quite good. Also, compared to many fighters it faced in Europe, the P-40 had long range and carried a lot of fuel. By the time it reached a target on an escort or fighter sweep mission it would be lighter compared to enemy fighters taking off to attack them. Also the P-40 had very good dive speed and dive acceleration so experienced pilots could use that to keep it's speed up.

One other thing about the above list which is part of the issue I think with peoples opinions on certain planes - the same stats tend to get repeated over and over and as we know, Wikipedia isn't exactly superb in terms of signal to noise ratio or reliability. One of the specific issues on WW2 fighters is that they quote different types of numbers for engine horsepower and then provide all kinds of other stats behind that. So for example for one aircraft they show hp at 10,000 ft for another at sea level or for takeoff, for one they show military rating for another HP on boost. So you often aren't even comparing like with like.

P-40 and P-39 engines are often quoted at their takeoff or military power settings. Which makes them look even more underpowered. The Allison V-1710-39 on the P-40E is usually shown as giving 1,150 which is rated power at 45.5" Hg. But the WEP setting was later set at 56" (1,470 hp) and it was apparently routine to operate at 60" Hg (for 1,550 hp) which is a very big difference. It takes it from a dismal power ratio of 0.14 to a respectable 0.18.

So maybe this aircraft is a bit of a dog up high, but an experienced pilot can get it moving pretty well at least down low which could come as a nasty surprise

The extra HP was also apparently built into the strategy developed by the DAF from 1942 of "turning into the attack" meaning whole squadrons would wheel around and face diving enemy fighters. They really couldn't do this earlier before they "got our Kittyhawks running properly " to quote Bobby Gibbes. I don't think it was even an option in early 1942 when they were suffering much heavier losses.

Anyway, I know it's a big data dump, it's obviously something I'm quite interested in and would like to get right. Hope others may find it interesting.

P-39 and P-40 were drastically overweight. Your figures for the FW190A-8 of .20HP/lb is 42% more than a P-40E of .14HP/lb. Meaning the FW190A-8 has 42% more horsepower per pound of weight. For a P-40E to have a .20HP/lb ratio meant the P-40E would need to weigh no more than 5750lb, meaning it would need to be 2530lb lighter. That's well over a ton.

The P-40 (and the P-39) were both drastically overweight. The P-39 could have been fixed (easily at airbase level) but I don't know how to make a P-40E lighter by 2530lb.

 

[Schweik]

P-39 and P-40 were drastically overweight. Your figures for the FW190A-8 of .20HP/lb is 42% more than a P-40E of .14HP/lb. Meaning the FW190A-8 has 42% more horsepower per pound of weight. For a P-40E to have a .20HP/lb ratio meant the P-40E would need to weigh no more than 5750lb, meaning it would need to be 2530lb lighter. That's well over a ton.

The P-40 (and the P-39) were both drastically overweight. The P-39 could have been fixed (easily at airbase level) but I don't know how to make a P-40E lighter by 2530lb.

I disagree - and I don't think you understood my point.

First - the .14 hp/lb number is based on engine settings (45" Hg) which were not actually used in combat.

Second, sure the Fw 190 had an excellent power to weight ratio, it was well known as one of the fastest fighters of the war. It also incidentally made good use of it's very high weight to dive and pick up even more speed. That is why it had a much better combat speed than the Spit V. But that is really the only strength of the Fw 190. It couldn't turn with a Spitfire, or a P-40.

A Fw 190A-8 had a wing loading of 49.4 lb / square ft. Compare that to a P-40E with a hefty loaded weight of 8,280 lbs - it has a wing loading of 35.1 lb/square ft

What is the difference, really, between a P-40E and a Fw 190? The Fw is fifteen hundred pounds heavier, has smaller wings (34' span vs. 37') but it also has a (600 hp) more powerful engine. It's a drag racer. The P-40 though not as fast, is a Grand Prix racer, capable of making the tight turns. With a more powerful engine it can keep up.

The P-51, also 1,000 lbs heavier than a P-40, had a wing loading of 39 lbs / sq ft. We know that P-51s were on par in combat with Fw 190s, I think that is pretty well established. And yet the P-51 didn't have a super high power to weight ratio. What it did have was excellent streamlining, jet effect from it's exhaust, and (nominally) laminar flow wings, and 300 more horsepower. Which is why it's combat speed was so high.

If you read that post again, you'll notice that both the P-39 and the P-40 in most versions were actually on par in terms of power / weight with the P-51, (late model) P-38, F6F and Corsair, at least at the lower altitudes. Below 20,000 feet, a P-40L had almost as much power as a P-51D, it was still slower but it was also more maneuverable. In a combat with a Bf 109 or Fw 190 it could dive to pick up speed.

So if a P-40 or P-39 is overweight, so are all the other fighters I listed.

S

 

[Schweik]

Also, for all it's excellent power to weight ratio, the Spit V had a theoretical top speed of 375 mph / 605 kph, the P-40F per this test, had a top speed of 370 mph so it's hardly lagging way behind. And while the Spit V was in many ways a better fighter, it wasn't in all ways.

 

[P-39 Expert]

I disagree - and I don't think you understood my point.

First - the .14 hp/lb number is based on engine settings (45" Hg) which were not actually used in combat.

Second, sure the Fw 190 had an excellent power to weight ratio, it was well known as one of the fastest fighters of the war. It also incidentally made good use of it's very high weight to dive and pick up even more speed. That is why it had a much better combat speed than the Spit V. But that is really the only strength of the Fw 190. It couldn't turn with a Spitfire, or a P-40.

A Fw 190A-8 had a wing loading of 49.4 lb / square ft. Compare that to a P-40E with a hefty loaded weight of 8,280 lbs - it has a wing loading of 35.1 lb/square ft

What is the difference, really, between a P-40E and a Fw 190? The Fw is fifteen hundred pounds heavier, has smaller wings (34' span vs. 37') but it also has a (600 hp) more powerful engine. It's a drag racer. The P-40 though not as fast, is a Grand Prix racer, capable of making the tight turns. With a more powerful engine it can keep up.

The P-51, also 1,000 lbs heavier than a P-40, had a wing loading of 39 lbs / sq ft. We know that P-51s were on par in combat with Fw 190s, I think that is pretty well established. And yet the P-51 didn't have a super high power to weight ratio. What it did have was excellent streamlining, jet effect from it's exhaust, and (nominally) laminar flow wings, and 300 more horsepower. Which is why it's combat speed was so high.

If you read that post again, you'll notice that both the P-39 and the P-40 in most versions were actually on par in terms of power / weight with the P-51, (late model) P-38, F6F and Corsair, at least at the lower altitudes. Below 20,000 feet, a P-40L had almost as much power as a P-51D, it was still slower but it was also more maneuverable. In a combat with a Bf 109 or Fw 190 it could dive to pick up speed.

So if a P-40 or P-39 is overweight, so are all the other fighters I listed.

S

The difference between a P-40E and a FW190 is 50mph and 1000fpm better climb at 20000'. I don't know how to put it any simpler.

The P-51(BCD) had a high combat speed because it had a two stage engine for high altitude performance. Neither the P-40 nor the FW190 had that.

 

[Schweik]

The difference between a P-40E and a FW190 is 50mph and 1000fpm better climb at 20000'. I don't know how to put it any simpler.

Sure, but what is the actual difference? Are you arguing that the Fw 190 was lighter? The only difference I can see was the engine, and perhaps drag (wingspan certainly) - but that is not the same thing as being overweight, the early P-40E was underpowered. But not all P-40s were.

To wit and more importantly the Fw 190 didn't face many P-40Es (maybe a few in RAF service) but it did face P-40K, P-40Fs, P-40Ls (which actually had a better rate of climb by the way) P-40M and P-40Ns, all of which had substantially more powerful engines than the E (or more precisely - engines which were used at much higher power settings and therefore delivered much more horsepower). And the combat record in particular for the US flown P-40F and L, is clear in that they were able to face enemy fighters on at least equal terms, including the Fw 190. The records published in Shores Volume IV make that quite clear.

The P-40 never did get an 1,800 hp engine but it had other strengths, maneuverability, dive speed etc.

The P-51(BCD) had a high combat speed because it had a two stage engine for high altitude performance. Neither the P-40 nor the FW190 had that.

Yeah but it's not that simple because not all combat took place at 28,000 ft. In the Med, in Russia, in the Pacific and the CBI, a lot of the air combat took place at low altitude. This is a big part of why the P-39 did so well in Russia as we know. It's also why the P-40 was viable in those Theaters, as we now know and contrary to what is said in a lot of books printed in the 20th Century.

 

[Schweik]

If the primary mission of the air forces is to say, sink landing craft (as at Sicily or Anzio.. or Milne Bay) or to blow up bridges, or destroy tanks (as say at El Alamein or Stalingrad or Kursk), then the fighting will take place at low altitude. The fighters, in other words, go where the bombers are. I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. It should be particularly obvious for a P-39 enthusiast. There was almost no value on the Russian Front to flying fast at 25,000 feet. This is why the MiG 3 was a disappointment, it's why they didn't care for the P-47 for example, and it's why they liked the P-40 and loved the P-39.

So much analysis of WW2 seems to be based on bomber escorts in 1944 at 25,000 feet. And yet, by then the outcome of the war was already a foregone conclusion. The real struggle took place in 1940, 1941, 1942, and probably the first half of 1943. Of course many people died after that, especially civilians, but just because "Big Week" happened chronologically later than say, Tobruk, Guadalcanal or Kharkov, doesn't mean it was actually more important to the outcome of the war.

Certain Theaters like the Med, the CBI, and the Russian Front, and the Solomons tend to get vastly less emphasis in popular portrayals of WW2 in Anglo-American media than D-Day and the Ardennes Offensive. But I think modern historiography in general is increasingly recognizing the critical nature of the supply lines - Oil from the Middle East, oil in Southern Russia, every kind of supply in the Burma Road and so on, to creating the tipping point in the war. These were the most important fights during those critical middle years of the war.


And that is where you found the P-40 and the P-39, the Hurricane and the Spit V, the Wildcat and the Yak 1 bearing the brunt. They may not have flown over 400 mph at 30,000 feet but they shot down the enemy fighters, sunk the enemy ships and blew up the enemy tanks, and that is what actually mattered.

S

 

[Glider]

A lot is being made of the claims and losses that are in the Vol 4 of thr Shores series. Mine is for Christmas so I have to wait a couple of weeks yet but other factors play into real life which are being ignored.
By this stage of the conflict the Germans were heavily outnumbered, spares, supplies and fuel very hard to come by. New pilots were not close to the calibre of the old one who would have been very tired.

As to performance the 190 was nearly always capable of 390 mph+ figures the P40 could only dream of, no matter what version, giving it a significant advantage. A lot is made of the occasional really good day the USAAF had but this the other factors mentioned above should also be remembered.
Had the positions been reversed and the P40's been heavily outnumbered, how do you think they would have fared?

I have never heard of any allied pilot who flew the P40 and the 190 or 109G who considered the P40 to be remotely as capable in air to air combat as the German aircraft

During the Six day war there was a combat between the Jordanian Hunters and Israeli Mirage III's where the Hunters won, but would anyone seriously say the Hunter was an equally good fighter (and I have a really soft spot for the Hunter).

 

[Schweik]

A lot is being made of the claims and losses that are in the Vol 4 of thr Shores series. Mine is for Christmas so I have to wait a couple of weeks yet but other factors play into real life which are being ignored.
By this stage of the conflict the Germans were heavily outnumbered, spares, supplies and fuel very hard to come by. New pilots were not close to the calibre of the old one who would have been very tired.

I will give this to you Strategically and Operationally but this was not usually the case Tactically. The Germans were pretty good at putting a large force together to challenge Allied formations. The days of 4 Bf 109s attacking 20 DAF fighters were long gone by 1943, largely due to the changing tactics of the latter (less purely defensive after mid 1942). So most of the fights were fairly even (20 vs 20, 40 vs 40) or sometimes tilted one way or the other but generally the Luftwaffe did not fight outnumbered - they concentrated their forces at the expense of abandoning other parts of the front which was a source of constant tension between them and the Afrika Korps. In Sicily and Italy etc. the front lines were smaller so this was less of an issue.

I will say this though as far as Fw 190s - a lot of the ones shot down over Italy etc. weren't really fighter units they were Jabo units often recruited from Stuka pilots and not given a lot of fighter training so that may account for some of how things went. I would not say the same generally for Bf 109, MC 205 or MC 202 pilots though at that stage (though the Italians in particular may have been suffering from bad morale). Luftwaffe pilot training was not yet so acute of a problem in early to mid 1943 as far as I know. Certainly no worse than pilot training had been for the Allies in 1941 and 1942!!! Does this "times were tough" argument not apply equally in both directions? How come it's never brought up to explain the glorious victories of Luftwaffe Experten in 1941 and early 1942 in Russia and the Med?

As to performance the 190 was nearly always capable of 390 mph+ figures the P40 could only dream of, no matter what version, giving it a significant advantage. A lot is made of the occasional really good day the USAAF had but this the other factors mentioned above should also be remembered.

This seems to be the go-to implication on here when I have pointed out days when P-40s shot down more German or Italian fighters than they lost. But I have been looking for all the engagements and trying to count them up. In Volume II the RAF Kittyhawk pilots had plenty of bad days - the exceptions were especially from the dozen or so DAF pilots who became Aces. In Volume III the RAF still has quite a few bloody noses, but this was increasingly offset by days where they did well. Still probably 2 bad ones for 1 good one.

The USAAF P-40 units, of which there were 5 Fighter Groups had only five "bad days" that I found in Volume III, and only one really bad one (Feb 2 1943) and that was against Fw 190s. They had maybe 10 "good days" by contrast, about twice as many in other words.

In Volume IV so far, the worst "bad day" I found so far was 9 July 1943 where the 324th FG lost 3 P-40s in air to air combat with Bf 109s and another 2 allegedly to Flak - scoring no actual victories in spite of a bunch of claims. There are at least 4 days where they lost 1 or 2 fighters for no victories. But I have found 13 days where they came out ahead by at least 2-1 and often by as much as 5-0 or 6-1. Especially certain units (325 FG really stands out). In other words I have been counting all the combats, the only ones I filter out are the ones which 1) there were no major losses of P-40s and 2) the fighting was too busy to determine who shot down what. So for example if Spitfire pilots claimed 5 enemy planes and P-40 pilots also claimed 5, and the enemy actually lost 4, I can't tell you who shot which aircraft down and I know what the assumption would be. If a lot of P-40s were shot down I'll mark that page regardless but there don't seem to be too many of those. The majority of their losses were to Flak on days where they didn't even face opposition (and LW made no claims)

The ones which stand out are days where for example 325 FG was doing a sweep over Sardania and there were no other Allied claims in the area or at all on that day, so in those cases you can clearly see from the loss records who came out on top.

TL : DR I don't think it is a fluke and I have not been cherry picking these dates. When you get your copy lets go through the whole thing and count it.

Had the positions been reversed and the P40's been heavily outnumbered, how do you think they would have fared?

The answer is they were often outnumbered, and they usually fared well anyway. At least the USAAF units did.

I have never heard of any allied pilot who flew the P40 and the 190 or 109G who considered the P40 to be remotely as capable in air to air combat as the German aircraft

This is a much higher threshold than before but I'll accept that challenge. I do know of a few. Will post quotes later.

During the Six day war there was a combat between the Jordanian Hunters and Israeli Mirage III's where the Hunters won, but would anyone seriously say the Hunter was an equally good fighter (and I have a really soft spot for the Hunter).

I don't think it's a fair comparison - the P-40 wasn't A Hawker Hunter (or a Brewster Buffalo or an I-16 or an LaGG-3). P-40s had 2,225 overall victory claims in American service, and 592 in the Med, almost twice as many in the Med as US Spitfires (364), more than twice as many as US P-47 pilots scored in the Med (263) and vastly more than the P-39 (25). Add to that 450 claims by RAF / Commonwealth P-40 pilots in the Med and it's clear that it was not some fluke. Many discussions and descriptions of the P-40 including quite a few in other threads on this forum have claimed over and over again that a pilot flying a P-40 had zero chance in combat against a Bf 109, Mc 202, or Fw 190. However Shores books and by extension the actual historical records make it pretty clear that P-40 pilot shot down dozens of Bf 109s and MC 202s, and a small but significant number of MC 205s and Fw 190s. It's also worth pointing out that quite a few Experten were shot down

 

[Stig1207]

It's odd, but American sources seem to vary somewhat when it comes to claims and losses. Eg. looking at losses in the MTO in 1943 in this doc, the greater proportion of USAAF losses are attributed to enemy aircraft, not flak.

 

[tomo pauk]

There is too much said here for me to try and answer all, so I'll just add my 2 cents worth.
P-40 in this forum mostly got a fair treatment - my take on it is that it was a decent fighter, with many qualities one can attribute to a specific type (strong, decent performance, usually well armed for the task, great rate of roll, can turn well), plus it's main attribute - it was mass produced in the dire hours of 1941-42, so it very much mattered for the Allied war effort.
The failings were that it's power/weight and power/drag (drag as a equivalent flat plate, or drag expressed in pounds, not drag coefficient) at altitude was sorely lacking. Lack of power at altitude is an attribute of V-1710, high weight was a result of size, fuel specification, G load specification and armament installed, drag was a result of size, wight profile & series, plus add-ons that add drag increments.
Lack of power at altitude is where it hurt the most. At 15000 ft (that already by 1940 was not regared as that a high altitude), V-1710-33, -39 and similar Allisons will make ~1030 HP, the Merlin XX, 45 and similar will make 1270 HP, DB 601N gave 1170+ HP, 601E made more than 601N. BMW 801C/D - 1340-1400 HP.
That would mean that power to weight ratios where low-altitude engine power is used is misleading, since most of airforces expected from their fighters to fight at all altitudes. Power/weight has almost no bearing to the max speed, we know that heavy P-40F was much faster than heaviest version of Hurricane II, and that heavy P-51 was much faster than light Spitfire when similar HP was available - drag was the issue, not weight. We also know that those British fighters climbed better than those US fighter due to being lighter.
The V-1710 was improved by late 1942 with 'upped' S/C drive, however other people moved on - British with 2-stage Merlin, Germans with DB 605 and fully-rated DB 601E and BMW 801D, meaning that P-40 was still unable to compete above 15000 ft. The newest V-1710 gained parity in altitude power with Merlin III and DB 601N - not a good result. The 2-stage V-1710 was also running late, and there was no 'big S/C' V-1710 version either. At the end, the P-63 got the 2-stage V-1710, the P-51 got the 2-stage V-1650, the P-40 didn't received any, apart from the too late prototypes.

 

[Schweik]

It's odd, but American sources seem to vary somewhat when it comes to claims and losses. Eg. looking at losses in the MTO in 1943 in this doc, the greater proportion of USAAF losses are attributed to enemy aircraft, not flak.

Neat, thanks for posting that definitely going to save that document! To clarify I think there are two factors relevant here - first MAW volume IV covers (I think) May 1943 through September 1944. So half of 1943 and most of 1944. If you look at the document you posted AAA is actually the leading cause of fighter losses for 1944 (441 to enemy aircraft, 493 to flak).

In 1943 you are right it looks like a lot more fighter losses were to air combat (816 to 115, plus 157 to "other causes") but I suspect this is mainly the various other fighters - namely P-38s (which seem to have taken heavy casualties), Spitfires, Beaufighters, P-39s, and P-47s and then P-40s. Two of the main P-40 units (325 FG and 57 FG for a total of six squadrons) converted over to P-47s roughly in the late summer of 1943. That left three P-40 FG's in the USAAF - the 79th, 33rd and 324th. I believe the 79th also transitioned to P-47s in mid or late 1944 though I'm not certain. I know they were still flying P-40s at Anzio in early 1944.

I assume A-36s were counted as light bombers on your list but I'm not sure.

Anyway I have only skimmed the book so far and have not done a precise count yet, but I may pick a month and do a count of all claims and losses on that time span to further clarify the picture so to speak, as I did previously for a month in MAW III. What I'm saying at this point is based on my impressions from briefly looking at the total claims and losses on every page a couple of times. To repeat, the US P-40 fighter groups did not generally suffer a lot of losses in Volume IV, but the losses they did suffer seemed to be mostly flak or ground fire and also engine failure and other mechanical problems. Same for the P-47s. They were both flying a lot of the low to medium altitude missions (even though P-47s would have been better at high altitude missions!) while the P-38s were flying escort for the heavy bombers and the US and RAF Spitfire squadrons were facing the brunt of the air superiority fight from around August 1943 onward.

However it is worth noting that P-40 squadrons were still flying fighter sweep and (medium) bomber escort missions (usually without any top cover from Spitfires or P-38s contrary to legend) through the end of 1943 and they clearly were not getting slaughtered. The 57th FG was a bit of a hybrid in mid 1943 though as they had both P-47s and P-40s flying together for a while.

One reason why the 325th FG in particular may have done so well in comparison to the others is that it was attached to a bomb group (of 3 B-26 squadrons) and therefore was flying mostly medium altitude bomber escort and fighter sweep missions, whereas the other Fighter Groups like the 324th and all the RAF squadrons were flying a lot of ground attack and CAS missions which were much more dangerous both in terms of flak and enemy fighters.

S

 

[Schweik]

There is too much said here for me to try and answer all, so I'll just add my 2 cents worth.
P-40 in this forum mostly got a fair treatment - my take on it is that it was a decent fighter, with many qualities one can attribute to a specific type (strong, decent performance, usually well armed for the task, great rate of roll, can turn well), plus it's main attribute - it was mass produced in the dire hours of 1941-42, so it very much mattered for the Allied war effort.
The failings were that it's power/weight and power/drag (drag as a equivalent flat plate, or drag expressed in pounds, not drag coefficient) at altitude was sorely lacking.

I can't really disagree with any of that. The P-40 in all it's forms was severely limited by it's altitude performance. In fact I'd take it a step further to point out that the real "performance ceiling" was not always at 15-16,000 feet as is often mentioned, but for the low-geared Allisons on the P-40E and P-40K, it was really more like 12,000 feet. Which is certainly a major hindrance to performance. This is the reason IMO that the USAAF almost exclusively used the merlin XX engined P-40F / L instead of the other types for the Med, even though for example the P-40K was considered much faster down low ... because the P-40F / L had that 20k' performance ceiling which meant they were not getting jumped from above so often. In the Pacific and CBI the dive speed advantage of the P-40 was so significant, once they learned to correctly use it, that it was sufficient to correct for the altitude defect.

I also agree with you that drag was an issue related to speed- often mentioned by the Russians for example since the P-40 was much draggier than most of their native made fighters and, I think significantly, much more draggy than a P-39. But weight was more important, as you noted, for rate of climb which also mattered a lot for combat speed. Significantly, one of the things I learned about the P-40 doing research was that the jump up to WEP made a change in rate of climb from a miserable 2,000 fpm or even less to over 3,000 fpm. I have pilot accounts noting that they had to climb to altitude using WEP. This is why I think engine power was such an important issue for the design.

So granted - the performance ceiling was a major flaw of the P-40.

However, many good fighters in WW2 did have a significant flaw or three. Being a medium to low altitude fighter was not necessarily a fatal flaw. In fact we know that almost all the Russian made fighters were low altitude planes, the RAF specifically designed certain versions of the Spitfire to fly at low altitude (LF versions) and fielded the troubled but ultimately successful Typhoon and Tempest series which were basically low altitude birds and so on. It could actually be a useful thing to have for certain Theaters or certain operations.

My point is that P-40s were clearly a bit more important than we had assumed. More than I had assumed anyway. There are hundreds of books which faithfully repeat the Trope that the P-40 was "rugged but unmaneuverable and slow". Many P-40 pilots repeated that they liked the plane because "it would get you home" - partly a factor of strength in the build etc. and that is how the legend about the plane attributed it. But we here in this forum know that no amount of armor or extra longerons can protect an aircraft from being disintegrated under sustained 20mm cannon fire. The P-40 got it's pilots home because of the combination of being 'rugged' with being very maneuverable (roll and turn) and fast in a dive, meaning it gave pilots the all-important ability to disengage. I think that is one of the key factors that gets forgotten in discussions of fighters.

The fact that so many P-40 pilots were Aces, and that P-40 pilots at least claimed more enemy aircraft (2225 in US service alone) shot down than F4F or F4U pilots (not even counting RAF and Soviet claims), and were in fact able to hold their own against Bf109s and MC 202s routinely - and all the way into 1944, was all news to me. And that I think probably needs to be corrected in the shorthand on the history of this aircraft. Everybody knows about the AVG but that tends to be treated as a one-off, and even diminished (they were supposedly only fighting Ki-27s etc.).

Yes it was a deeply flawed design, but they seem to have found ways to work around that flaw and experienced, well trained pilots were able to really do a lot with it. It had a lot more capability than most people realize. In particular for Americans, the record of the US P-40 units in the Med seems to be very little known. They did more than shoot down Ju-52s!

And per the thread title, so apparently did the P-39 though it was mostly the Russians who were able to make the most of it.

S

 

[Schweik]

I'm also going to go out on a limb with kind of a hunch, but from what I have seen so far I think if you crunch the numbers it's going to turn out that some P-40 units in the Med had significantly better claim / verified claim / to loss ratios than any of the P-38 or P-47 equipped units. And I think it will be close on the US Spitfire units as well. It would be a bit of work to prove this but I think that would go a long way toward correcting the record.

 

[tomo pauk]

... because the P-40F / L had that 20k' performance ceiling which meant they were not getting jumped from above so often. In the Pacific and CBI the dive speed advantage of the P-40 was so significant, once they learned to correctly use it, that it was sufficient to correct for the altitude defect.

P-40s were faster than most of Ki-43s and all Ki-27s, especiall the early P-40s. Even the Zero was not faster at any altitude.

...
However, many good fighters in WW2 did have a significant flaw or three. Being a medium to low altitude fighter was not necessarily a fatal flaw.
...

Certainly not a fatal flaw, but it means that one has to have other fighters to fight at higher altitudes. Meaning that vast majority of P-40s were useless as escorts for B-17s or B-24s at their best altitude bands, as well as ill suited to intercept Axis bomber sorties that flew many times at 20000 ft - a problem shared with P-39s of 1942.

Yes it was a deeply flawed design, but they seem to have found ways to work around that flaw and experienced, well trained pilots were able to really do a lot with it. It had a lot more capability than most people realize.
...

P-40 was not a deeply flawed design. We know that with a 2-stage V-1710 it went as good as the Fw 190D-9 or best performing Fw 190A. As good or better than any Italian, Soviet or Japanese fighter. The early versions were about as fast as Spitfire I/II, Bf 109E or Zero, while roll rate was far better, with capacity to carry sizable fuel quantity, firepower and protection.
Crucial problem was the too late introduction of considerably better engines, unlike what happened with Bf 109, Spitfire, P-51 or later Italian fighters.

 

[Schweik]

P-40s were faster than most of Ki-43s and all Ki-27s, especiall the early P-40s. Even the Zero was not faster at any altitude.

I have seen different numbers on this depending on the specific version(s) involved and in the case of the P-40E, what engine settings were used. There is a wartime test on WW2Aircraftperformance.org where a P-40K was able to extend from a Zero in level flight though some people have suggested they were using the wrong fuel for the Zero or that it had engine trouble. As far as I'm concerned I don't know enough to say that the Zero wasn't faster at any altitude. It could definitely outclimb the P-40 at any altitude. But clearly the P-40 could pick up enough speed in a few minutes of diving to evade and disengage, which quickly became the standard practice in the Pacific and CBI.

Certainly not a fatal flaw, but it means that one has to have other fighters to fight at higher altitudes. Meaning that vast majority of P-40s were useless as escorts for B-17s or B-24s at their best altitude bands, as well as ill suited to intercept Axis bomber sorties that flew many times at 20000 ft - a problem shared with P-39s of 1942.

I agree with this for the most part, but how important were B-17s and B-24s to the overall war effort in 1942? Or even 1943?

This is a larger / separate discussion but I think peoples attitudes about these fighters can partly hinge on whether they think air battles in 1944 or 1945 were the most important or the ones in 1942 / 1943 or the ones in 1940 / 41. I tend to lean toward the early and middle parts of the war as being the most important, which is probably part of the reason why I like the P-40.

I think one reason why the P-40 was disliked so much by generals during the war was due to what they call the "Bomber Mafia" faction in the Army Air Force. You are certainly right, the P-40 was not a good escort for B-17s or B-24s. Generally, I do consider the altitude limitation a major problem but they were also able clearly to work around it. P-40s did not have a problem shooting down G4M "Betty", Ki 21 "Sally", (at 20,000 feet or any other altitude) or B5N "Kate" or D3A "Val" bombers in the Pacific and CBI Theaters, regardless of the altitude limitations ( the inflammability of the bombers and heavy firepower of the P-40 seemed to compensate) and in the Theaters where it operated - Pacific, CBI, Med / Middle East and Russia, the most important bombing was going on down near sea level, focused on the destruction of ships, airfields, artillery, bridges and tanks in other words. For this part of the fight the P-40 was pretty well suited.

Not ideal though especially in Russia or the Med as they generally had to cope with being attacked from above by fast German fighters in particular and that is why I say it was 'deeply flawed'. I do see it as a major problem but also one they adapted to with special tactics.

P-40 was not a deeply flawed design. We know that with a 2-stage V-1710 it went as good as the Fw 190D-9 or best performing Fw 190A. As good or better than any Italian, Soviet or Japanese fighter. The early versions were about as fast as Spitfire I/II, Bf 109E or Zero, while roll rate was far better, with capacity to carry sizable fuel quantity, firepower and protection.
Crucial problem was the too late introduction of considerably better engines, unlike what happened with Bf 109, Spitfire, P-51 or later Italian fighters.

I agree with that but when I say the design was deeply flawed I meant with the engines it actually had in combat during the war, i.e. with the inherent altitude limitation / performance ceiling. Of course people seem to forget that many other fighters also had altitude limitations (including notably the A6M and the earlier Fw 190s). Contrary to the myth, P-40 units were able to adapt to this flaw and operated without overhead cover from other fighters. They worked out effective tactics for attacking enemy fighters that were attacking them from above, but it was never a comfortable proposition for pilots to have to give up the initiative like that and face what was always a kind of roll of the dice in the opening moments of a fight. If they could catch enemy fighters at co-altitude or below, they seem to have had a field day. It is too bad they never put a two stage engine in a wartime P-40 but from what I gather that may not even have been possible, I don't know. Anyway it didn't happen and I'm really focused here on the history.

S

 

[tomo pauk]

I have seen different numbers on this depending on the specific version(s) involved and in the case of the P-40E, what engine settings were used. There is a wartime test on WW2Aircraftperformance.org where a P-40K was able to extend from a Zero in level flight though some people have suggested they were using the wrong fuel for the Zero or that it had engine trouble. As far as I'm concerned I don't know enough to say that the Zero wasn't faster at any altitude. It could definitely outclimb the P-40 at any altitude. But clearly the P-40 could pick up enough speed in a few minutes of diving to evade and disengage, which quickly became the standard practice in the Pacific and CBI.

The P-40K will out-pace the Zero under 10000 ft or thereabout, with both A/C using best avaiable power.
Diving to disenagege is all good and well, however that will meant that enemy bomber just received a respite, or that allied bomber is without protection now.

I agree with this for the most part, but how important were B-17s and B-24s to the overall war effort in 1942? Or even 1943?

This is a larger / separate discussion but I think peoples attitudes about these fighters can partly hinge on whether they think air battles in 1944 or 1945 were the most important or the ones in 1942 / 1943 or the ones in 1940 / 41. I tend to lean toward the early and middle parts of the war as being the most important, which is probably part of the reason why I like the P-40.

Heavies were certainly flying thousands of sorties in 1943, and even in 1942. They provided a way to hit Germany proper well before it was possible by more convetional forces, like artillery or infantry.

I think one reason why the P-40 was disliked so much by generals during the war was due to what they call the "Bomber Mafia" faction in the Army Air Force. You are certainly right, the P-40 was not a good escort for B-17s or B-24s. Generally, I do consider the altitude limitation a major problem but they were also able clearly to work around it. P-40s did not have a problem shooting down G4M "Betty", Ki 21 "Sally", (at 20,000 feet or any other altitude) or B5N "Kate" or D3A "Val" bombers in the Pacific and CBI Theaters, regardless of the altitude limitations ( the inflammability of the bombers and heavy firepower of the P-40 seemed to compensate) and in the Theaters where it operated - Pacific, CBI, Med / Middle East and Russia, the most important bombing was going on down near sea level, focused on the destruction of ships, airfields, artillery, bridges and tanks in other words. For this part of the fight the P-40 was pretty well suited.

P-40 did it's part within the Allied war effort, no doubt about it. 'Bomber mafia' probably didn't wanted any fighter to steal the funds or glory.

Not ideal though especially in Russia or the Med as they generally had to cope with being attacked from above by fast German fighters in particular and that is why I say it was 'deeply flawed'. I do see it as a major problem but also one they adapted to with special tactics.

Herelein lies the rub - in raw performance, and above 12000-15000 ft, P-40s were second to German fighters, and second to MC.202 actually.

I agree with that but when I say the design was deeply flawed I meant with the engines it actually had in combat during the war, i.e. with the inherent altitude limitation / performance ceiling. Of course people seem to forget that many other fighters also had altitude limitations (including notably the A6M and the earlier Fw 190s). Contrary to the myth, P-40 units were able to adapt to this flaw and operated without overhead cover from other fighters. They worked out effective tactics for attacking enemy fighters that were attacking them from above, but it was never a comfortable proposition for pilots to have to give up the initiative like that and face what was always a kind of roll of the dice in the opening moments of a fight. If they could catch enemy fighters at co-altitude or below, they seem to have had a field day. It is too bad they never put a two stage engine in a wartime P-40 but from what I gather that may not even have been possible, I don't know. Anyway it didn't happen and I'm really focused here on the history.

S

Early Fw 190s were excellent at altitude (much better than late Fw 190s with BMW engines), only bested by Bf 109 of the era. The Spitfire VII/VIII/XI equaled them from late 1942 on, and Merlin Mustang and P-47 bested them above 20000 ft by some time of 1943.
Thee 2-stage engine was installed in handful of test P-40 in 1944 (= too late) - test report of one of those.

 

[Schweik]

The P-40K will out-pace the Zero under 10000 ft or thereabout, with both A/C using best avaiable power.
Diving to disenagege is all good and well, however that will meant that enemy bomber just received a respite, or that allied bomber is without protection now.

Yes, it's basically the same problem faced by Bf 109s against most Allied planes, they could attack from advantage and disengage but couldn't remain in sustained dogfights without increasing risk. Against Spitfires this more or less equaled out, against Soviet fighters at least initially they did very well.

From what I understand US P-40 squadrons in the Pacific and CBI dealt with this by breaking up into flights of four. So for example when attacking bombers, each flight would attack and then disengage when they got into trouble, but then another flight would attack and so on. The first flight to disengage would return to altitude by the time the third or fourth flight was engaging. In this manner they kept the Japanese fighters occupied and were able to maintain steady pressure on the bombers.

They could not use these kinds of tactics in the Med because German fighters, faster, very well coordinated and able to attack from above, could gang up on them. So in the Med they kept to large flights, whole squadrons of ~12 aircraft basically. Fortunately for the Allies in that Theater German bombers mostly operated at low or medium altitude because they couldn't really hit anything that mattered from ~20,000 ft.

Interestingly according to Australian pilots that served in both Theaters, while they were able to use their radios freely in the Pacific they had to be much more circumspect and disciplined about using them in the Med because Germans were able to determine their position.

Heavies were certainly flying thousands of sorties in 1943, and even in 1942. They provided a way to hit Germany proper well before it was possible by more conventional forces, like artillery or infantry.

Well this is another argument isn't it? With the possible exception of the Ploesti raid I would argue that the heavy bomber raids were basically an attritional Strategy and did not play a significant role in any of the key turning points or battles of the war - especially before 1944. At Midway, Guadalcanal, El Alamein, Kasserine Pass, Tobruk, Sicily, Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kursk, Kharkov etc. it was the tactical bombing and dogfights at low altitude that matttered.

P-40 did it's part within the Allied war effort, no doubt about it. 'Bomber mafia' probably didn't wanted any fighter to steal the funds or glory.

Especially one that was ineffective at escorting heavy bombers.

Herelein lies the rub - in raw performance, and above 12000-15000 ft, P-40s were second to German fighters, and second to MC.202 actually.

Well the stripped P-40F and P-40L were pretty close I think up to 20,000 feet. Regardless, I can point to numerous days when they shot down Bf 109s, MC. 202 and MC.205 fighters at rates like 3-1 and a few at 6-1. So the raw performance didn't matter as much as we might think, at least in those battles.

Early Fw 190s were excellent at altitude (much better than late Fw 190s with BMW engines), only bested by Bf 109 of the era. The Spitfire VII/VIII/XI equaled them from late 1942 on, and Merlin Mustang and P-47 bested them above 20000 ft by some time of 1943.

What was the engine before the BMW?

Thee 2-stage engine was installed in handful of test P-40 in 1944 (= too late) - test report of one of those.

Yes that is P-40Q right? Promising but doomed by the crash of a couple of prototypes and overall (well earned) disfavor of Curtiss Aircraft company. It did look good but it didn't have the range or speed of the P-51 and I think that is what they cared about most at that point.

S