Talk:Curtiss P-40/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

combat flaps

There is a mistake , P-40 had indeed combat flaps! Please check this out and fix it !

It had flaps that could be lowered in combat, it didn't have automatic combat flaps of the type used in the N1K2 George, or IIRC the Ki43
Drifter Bob

Spitfire didn't have even combat flaps.P-36 and Bf-109 were the first figthers to incorporate combat flaps

Every time I read this little section, it makes me cringe. The phrase "combat flaps" is largely a term applied to modern jet fighters, and it certainly does not belong in any discussion regarding the P-40!!!! This whole mess about "combat flaps" has been created largely by the computer flight simulators & the computer geeks that write the books telling you the "history" of the airplanes their programs simulate & how to "fly" & "fight" with them in their little virtual world. The P-38 had a "maneuvering flaps" position selectable on the flap control which provided inhanced slow-speed/high angle of attack maneuvering capability & in the P-51 the pilot could easily select the first "notch" of flaps (the first detent--10 degrees flap deflection) to slightly lower the stall speed of the airplane while maneuvering & these easily selected flap positions amounted to "combat flaps." The '109 had aerodynamically actuated Handley Page-type slats along the wing outboard leading edge to enhance slow speed/high-angle of attack maneuverability. The P-40 (& the P-36, which had practically an identical wing structure to the P-40), on the other hand, had simple split-trailing edge flaps that were designed to be used while landing the airplane & used on very rare occasions sometimes when taking off (no more than 1/4 deflection for takeoff--to properly select this slight deflection, one must use 3 or 4 strokes of the hydraulic hand pump on the right side of the cockpit). You see, split-trailing edge flaps (like on a P-40, P-36, T-6, P-80 or B-17) do lower the stall speed of the airplane, but they produce a tremendous amount of DRAG (even at partial deflections). Slotted flaps (like those found on a P-51, P-47 or F6F) or Fowler flaps (like on a P-38 or B-24) at small deflection angles will enhance the maneuverability of a wing at slow airspeed/high angle of attack with very little penalty in the way of drag.
A key concept in air combat maneuvering is energy management. Fighting in a P-40 is definitely a "downhill proposition"--the airplane is a real hot rod as long as you keep the nose down (remember the AVG's slashing diving attacks?). The way to effectively dogfight with a P-40 is to keep your maneuvering energy (read this as "speed") up by keeping your nose down & hit & run; extending your split trailing edge flaps is directly contrary to this concept, as they will really only give you DRAG & lots of it (which will bleed off a tremendous amount of maneuvering energy=poor energy management)! Plus the P-40's flaps are limited to 140 MPH indicated airspeed--they weren't designed to be extended at combat airpeeds!!! If you extend the flaps on a P-40 in high-speed maneuvering flight, you're quite likely to shed a few important pieces!
One of the reasons I started adding a lot of data to this Wikipedia article a while back is to dispell some oft repeated myths about hte P-40, perhaps chief among them that it was "unmaneuverable and obsolete but sturdy and therefore somehow hung on". As if a 'sturdy' plane which couldn't meaneuver could 'hang on' in combat. As far as I can determine the P-40 was considered both fast and highly maneuverable at low altitude, though it had a fairly poor sustained climb rate. It is worth noting that the P-40, while considered "Boom and Zoom" in the Pacific Theater was used more with "turn and Burn" tactics in North Africa and Russia. It was basically a T&B fighter which could dive fast. Both the Soviets and British reported that it could out-turn Me 109s. In the Pacific Theater, according to Robert DeHaven and several others, (some anecdotes in "Fire in the Sky" disucss this) it could out-turn the Zero by using a low-yo-yo (i.e. bank turns slightly nose-down). It was always generally a good idea to keep your nose down in a P-40 when possible but it did turn well, obviously much more so with flaps. The question is here how much that was done really. In the flight sims, if you deploy flaps at high speeds it will cause various problems, the flaps will often lock, the handling becomes difficult and it can be more easy to stall / spin, you can black out from G forces, and you can even tear off your wings. However it is done at higher speeds than 140 mph indicated, I believe that is for the equivalent of a landing flaps setting IIRC, i.e. all the way down. Drifter bob (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Now I know there are a few stories of P-40 pilots using their flaps to save their bacon in a few tight spots, but I promise you that these instances are the exception rather than the rule. The P-40 is a complex manual airplane--flying a P-40 is work! Until the P-40F (which had an "automatic" position on the electrically-actuated cowl flaps on its Packard-built Merlin engine) the only automatic system selectable on a P-40 was on the Curtiss Electric propeller. Flying the airplane is manual labor, not keystrokes! To extend the flaps, you have to take your left hand from the throttle or the trim knobs (the two controls that will mostly occupy your left hand--ESPECIALLY the trim) & move it back to a selector lever (that is mounted about where your elbow would normally be) & select the "down" position, then press the button on the top of the stick (to run the electric motor powering the hydraulic pump back in the tail) to get the flaps to go down. And there are no stops to select 1/4 or 1/2 down--if you want a certain amount of deflection, you must look at the gear & flap position indicator on the instrument panel (or at the indicator pins that poke up out of the wing trailing edge in the P-40N).
Sounds simple enough sitting there reading about it at your computer, right? Now imagine yourself sitting on a very uncomfortable seat (parachute seat packs are like sitting on slabs of concrete) in a very hot, very LOUD little space while you're working your empennage off maneuvering your airplane (try "flying" your simulator while running, not walking, on a treadmill or while three big friends take turns at trying to push you out of your seat from different directions while you try to "fly" with 20-pound exercise weights strapped to your arms) against someone that genuinely wants to kill you (no "Ctrl+Alt+Del" or "esc" keys here) while you frantically twist & turn your whole body in that small space (no simple keystrokes or joy-stick buttons to change point-of-view on the screen to see the enemy & NO HUD or situational display to keep up with them...it's MK I, Mod.0 eyeballs padlocked on the enemy) trying to keep up with that other (or those other) airplane(s) (while assessing their maneuvers & energy state & trying to guess their next move AND trying to keep up with the condition of your engine AND how much gas you've got left (at combat power settings, the engine sucks about 2 gallons a minute!) AND are all of my guns still firing AND WHICH WAY IS HOME???). Just about the LAST THING you need to be concerning yourself with in that situation is mucking about with the dang flap controls!!! If you need to force an opponent to overshoot, you'd be much better served by "crossing up" the controls (in a REAL heavy tail-dragger like a P-40, the rudder is a very real & important part of your life, from the time you climb into the cockpit, until you drag your exhausted south end out of it...you can't just select "Auto-coordination" in the preferences window...you'd better know what to do with your feet on those rudder pedals all of the time!)--a properly applied skid or slip at the right moment might induce the overshoot you're praying for & as soon as you release the controls the airplane will regain its energy AND the unusual cross-controlled attitude of the airplane will confuse the sight-picture of your opponent (proper sighting in aerial gunnery is greatly dependant upon judging the flight path of the target). Of course if it looks like you're genuinely about to buy the farm, try anything (who cares if you bring back a bent airplane that's missing a flap--the maintenance guys will just cobble what's left of your airplane together with the remnants of other shot up ships to make a whole airplane to fight another day, right?). I know I'm going to "ruffle some feathers" with this entry, & I apologize for scolding, but where the P-40 is concerned forget you've ever heard of combat flaps--they belong in the realm of F-16s & Eurofighters!71.228.225.234 (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat
PLUS if you start trying to shoot another airplane while maneuvering a P-40 with the flaps extended (God only knows how much they ARE extended), your gunsight is going to be WAY OUT OF WHACK! This is true of any American WWII fighter--at least in a P-38 or P-51 you have a REPEATABLE set flap deflection when you select maneuvering flaps, so it wouldn't be too difficult to get a feel, after gaining some experience in the airplane, for how much that set flap deflection throws the sight off. With the P-40, every time you try to select a small flap deflection, it WILL be different, so each time the sight will be off a different amount. Especially in maneuvering flight--where sighting is difficult enough--with the flaps out, your bullet dispersion pattern will be WAY OFF (it will be like trying to shoot in a slip or skid; the boresight line & the flight path will be markedly different)--probably something else your favorite computer simulator won't simulate very well. Imagine getting yourself into a 120-140 degree angle of bank (not quite inverted) trying to pull 2 to 4 (or maybe even more) G while trying to "pull a lead" on your favorite enemy fighter with some unknown flap deflection--you will be wasting valuable milliseconds & a VERY LIMITED QUANTITY of ammo trying to figure out just where the hell your tracers are going & walk them over to the target AND (in a situation like this example) you are quite likely, while you're trying to get the tracers to the target, to end up with your controls all "crossed up" & end up in an inverted stall/spin--that's something I PROMISE YOU NO flight simulator in the world can accurately duplicate...you have to experience it to believe it. Enough said (I know, I know..FINALLY!!! right?)192.100.70.210 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)CBsHellcat

Actually most of the good sims out now will realistically simulate a stall-spin, the P-40 has a nasty habit of inverting in a spin which is particularly dangerous at low altitude. Using the flaps in sims will also make the aircraft more difficult to handle, depending on the speed, the type of flaps, the altitude, the air temperature, wether the aircraft has leading edge slats etc.

It is inaccurate to claim that Combat Flaps wee something only seen in modern Jet Fighters. Numerous WW II fighters had combat flap systems, in fact the Spitfire was unusual in late war fighters in not having a combat flaps setting, partly because it was such an old design. Many aircraft like the Japanese N1K1 had automatic combat flap systems which deployed during bank turns.

Historically they did use the flaps in combat with both the P-40 and the P-36 / Hawk 75. Not having a pre-set setting was a liability, Not necessarily while shooting, although a lot of shooting was done at such close range that the gunsight being slightly off wouldn't always have made a difference. It is also true that the flaps on a P-40 cut speed a great deal and were not efficient like the flaps + leading edge slats on Me 109 and later aircraft were. It's a more primitive system, of more limited effectiveness in combat but it still confered advantages. Thats why later aircraft had more sophisticated combat flaps systems put in.

Nevertheless, in air combat when your life is in danger, you will use whatever advantage you can in order to stay alive. Or at least, the pilots who survived seemed to have done so.

The P-40 flaps are best used in the beginning of a turn, or a pull through such as in a Split-S. The first time I read of this being used by French pilots using P-36s. It has also been described in P-40 training. Pappy Boyington mentions using flaps on the P-40 in his novel Tonya. There were other mentions by the DAF pilots in dogfights with Me 109s but I don't remember which ones off hand. If an enemy aircraft was on your tail you are wise to use whatever you need to in order to out-turn them. The use of the flaps is not hugely more complex than many other things a fighter pilot had to do in combat, and could very well save your life even if it did throw off your gunsight temporarily.

For that matter, you could also use the P-40s flaps to pull lead if necessary though I don't know of any specific references to this being done. Again, conserving ammunition is important, but so is hitting the other guy first. It's a trade off like many things in air combat.

Anyway I'll try to find links about the use of combat flaps with the P-40. I spent a long time trying to find out if they were used, and I found that they were.Drifter bob (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I apologize for scolding. Drifter Bob, you are right--my F-16/Eurofighter comment was an overly-dramatic gross generalization. I think the real problem I have with this is one of semantics; I've spent many years around these old planes & I never really heard the term "combat flaps" in widespread use until the PC simulators started making a big splash (that's why I went off about how PC sims fall short). I think it's wonderful that so many people are still drawn to these airplanes & I think the amazing graphics & capabilities of those sims are part of what keeps the mystique alive by exposing a very large group of people to them that otherwise probably wouldn't pay much attention. I'm afraid though that I'm an Old Curmudgeon & a bit of a purist--NO standard production P-40 ever left Curtiss Wright's Buffalo production facility with "combat flaps." You will not find the words "combat flaps" in any official Air Corp publication about the standard P-40, whether it be the Pilots Handbook, the Pilots Training Manual, or technical manuals, repair manuals, or technical suppliments. You will not find any switch, placard or valve in a standard P-40's cockpit labeled "combat flaps." As far as what pilots actually did with the airplane in the field is concerned, nothing you could come up with would surprise me (I've been one for over 30 years & I know what we're capable of, especially in the military). Like I said, those examples you found of flaps being used in defensive moves are still the exception rather than the rule (I cannot speak to the French's short-lived employment, nor do I care to). I think you'll have difficulty finding examples of where flaps were used to "pull a lead" as any flap extension at all in a pursuit curve, especially in a P-40, is going to make it harder to pull the boresight line of the guns ahead of a maneuvering target--extending the flaps depresses the sight line to the outside of the turn (a turn where, depending on the G force involved, the airplane will already have a depressed sight line due to aerodynamic "mush"--a term actually used in the aerial gunnery training manuals of the day). In those last few "mils" as you try to work the pipper up to the target & get the correct lead, you end up holding your breath most of the time so as not to depleat the slightest bit of turning energy from the plane (been there, done that)--hands & feet are busy enough, too--no flaps! Again, sorry about my tone earlier--I appreciate how much research you've put into this!71.228.225.234 (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)CBsHellcat
Good point, it is inaccurate to use the term "combat flaps", as I put it above P-40 had flaps that could be lowered in combat, but not formal combat flaps. I don't think the article mentions "combat flaps"? In Il2 which is probably still the best commercially available flight Sim right now, it has combat flaps, takeoff, and landing flaps settings which is inaccurate. It should really be something you would map to a slider like your throttle and mixture. As for the difficulty in using it in combat, it is something I haven't been able to precisely determine. The pilots who re-count anecdotes rarely get into such a level specificity, primarily I think because the interviewers don't know much about air combat and are not pilots. The hydrolic control is on the stick, and there is a good indicator on the cockpit panel which makes it pretty easy to visually determine how far down your flaps are. Taking your hand off the throttle for a few seconds would not be a major issue IMO. One thing which I'm not sure about is how quickly flaps settings could be changed from say, 10% down to 'clean'. In theory you could use the flaps to pull lead past an enemy fighter and then release them for better control while shooting. This is actually what is done quite often in the flight sims. The flaps being down even partially makes it a bit difficult to finely control (i.e. handling) and harder to let your nose drop down so that you can line up or walk tracers into your target. This is often done both during bank turns and when pulling through vertical turns up (immellmann) or down (split S), such as when your target is attempting to start a loop.
Generally in the Sims I notice with the P-40 it works out best to deploy flaps for as short a time as possible in the beginning of a turn or pull-through. I'm interested to know if you could switch from what would be equivalent to a combat flaps setting and back again fairly quickly, assuming you were an experienced pilot. It seems like it would be possible in theory but I have not been able to determine how long it takes for flaps to go up and down on a P-40. Drifter bob (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The flaps usually move very quickly, especially when retracting them in the air (they blow up as soon as you move the handle to "up"). It was the comment at the very top of the page--"P-40 had indeed combat flaps!"--that set me off in the first place. Good hunting on your PC!192.100.70.210 (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)CBsHellcat

yeah that wasn't written by me I was replying to it... interesting discussion anyway

Proposal to remove the NPOV dispute notice

I have finally addressed virtually all of the requested footnotes, having purchased four books I no longer had in my library to rely on for reference material. Unless someone can prove that one or more of the refernces cited are in error, I propose that the NPOV dispute notice be at least temporarily lifted.

The few remaining citation- requests which I did not address are of this type:

Other New Zealand P-40s are on display at the Royal New Zealand Air Force Museum in Christchurch and the Museum of Transport and Technology in Auckland. [citation needed]

which don't require answering IMO. There is also a claim that the P-40 was unpopular with some USAAF pilots and officials. Though i did not write this, I believe it is true ... but I don't feel the need to back it up with a reference. I think it should remain but it can be removed as far as I'm concerned if somebody still wants to contest it.

As for the writing, if you don't like the way the article is written by all means feel free to improve it. Trim it down, make it more elegant. All I ask is that you please do not remove sourced data which I and others have carefully researched unless you have some grounds to contest it, and in the latter case, please bring that up here for discussion first.


Drifter bob 17:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up this discussion

I'm wondering since the issues with the page have been resolved, perhaps some of the bickering back and forth between myself and - Emt147 Burninate should be removed from this page, since it's fairly irrelevant. At least trimmed to the point that some of the rhetoric is toned down? Or is that acceptable policy in Wikipedia?

209.30.130.107 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Edting and cleanup

The editing and cleanup work looks good guys, I think the article is much improved now and reads better. Thanks for the hard work and continued efforts.

Drifter bob 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's almost ready to be nominated for feature article status. My main suggestion would be that some of the operational history would be better in articles about the individual units (e.g. Desert Air Force and articles on the US fighter groups). What do others think? Grant65 | Talk

Hmmm.. seems like the DAF article has more of the usual P-40 cliche's

"Although the mainstay of the DAF, the P-40 Kittyhawk, was a highly successful ground attack aircraft, it was merely adequate when it came to air to air combat with the Aeronautica Militare Italiana. And when the German Luftwaffe arrived in the theatre, its Messerschmitt Bf-109s inflicted severe losses on the slower and less agile P-40s."

Also, wasn't it regia aeronautica during WW II?

I don't mind this idea in general but don't want to lose too much of that good data from the P-40 page. Do y'all still consider it grossly oversized? Some of the anecdotes I guess could go in the squadron articles and be linked to from the P-40 page...?

Are you joking about the feature article status or serious?

Drifter bob 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm serious. There is no better way to fix an article than to attempt to bring it up to feature status. Most of the references are now there, the lack of which is the main deficiency in most articles.
As for the DAF article...I know what you mean, I was attempting a major rewrite several hours ago, but managed to lose the whole lot. Argh. Grant65 | Talk 23:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

P-40 In Literature

A nice addition to the P-40 In Literature section might be the famous book "God Is My CoPilot" written by US Army Col. Robert L. Scott circa 1943. It is not some obscure religious tract like it might sound, and for the majority of the book (an autobiography of Scott's WWII years) we are told a number of true P-40 air/ground combat stories. Objections?

--chipdouglas


Go for it chip.

Cubdriver, didn't the AVG have a handful of some other planes, Seversky P-35's or something of that type? I seem to remember reading that.

DB

Unreferenced claim

Per some anon user:

This number of kills really don't match with that reported by Axis sources. In axis reports, the Italian pilots of the 51st Stormo, based in Sardinia, didn't saw action that day, the Germans of III./JG77 lost four Bf 109s with one pilot killed

Unreferenced claim disputing veracity of referenced material, pulled until a citation can be provided. - Emt147 Burninate! 17:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


There are actually two similar claims by the 325 around the same time period.

Drifter Bob

Hi, dumb ass Q. In my ignorance, how do I add references in the footnote style - went to add a book and a couple of web sites as references for the RNZAF material, since someone wanted a source, but held off to do it in footnotes like the rst of the article. Winstonwolfe 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


German claims reference

Quote ; "However, recent research has suggested that German pilots in North Africa over-reported kills,[8] due in part to the German practice at the time of rewarding aces according to the number claimed" despite the fact the comment has no relevence to the P-40, this also is not a valid or verified fact; ALL fighter pilots overclaimed, not just the Luftwaffe in North africa, and as such should be removed. The link claiming validation for this statement is also NOT appropriate, as it is a book review and is therefore purely subjective. Can I suggest the above comment is removed? Harryurz 12:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment does have relevance to the P-40 in that air combat with the Germans in North Africa is the main sources of its reputation as an "inferior" aircaft. It is a big statement that "ALL" WW2 fighter pilots overclaimed. And the reviewer is not the first to make the point about the system of claims in the Luftwaffe and the practice of material rewards in direct proportion to the number of kills claimed. Such a system created incentive for German pilots to inflate claims and support each others' inflated claims for kills. I'm not aware of such a system in the Allied air forces during WW2, but I could be wrong. Grant65 | Talk 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The perception of the P-40 being an "inferior" aircraft originated from with the tactical use of the P-40 which led to the high losses to the Luftwaffe, . Whether the Luftwaffe overclaimed or not still has no relevence to the P-40 and any inherent design faults. The fact remians that given the nature of air combat overclaiming was the rule rather than the exception- the methods of kill verification were different for each combatent air force, evidence seems to suggest that if anything the Luftwaffe methods were more stringent than those employed by the Allies. Until the widespread use of camera guns post 1943-44 the Luftwaffe aces' 'scores' were generally more accurate than either the Soviet Air force, USAAF or the RAF. Harryurz 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can't grasp the connection between widespread perceptions about the P-40 and German kill claims, then you are either being obtuse or we have a significant communication problem. And you need to reference the claim that "Until the widespread use of camera guns post 1943-44 the Luftwaffe aces' 'scores' were generally more accurate..." Conventional wisdom says otherwise. Grant65 | Talk 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My concern with the article is the continued myth regarding Luftwaffe overclaiming; i.e. Marseille claimed 151 in North Africa and so MUST have falsified reports etc. It ought not really be discussed here perhaps someone can compile a new article? As for referencing Luftwaffe accuracy over Allied claim accuracy- try the RAF Fighter Command offensive over Europe 1941-42. RAF claims were 500% more than actual German losses ( they were fighting over occupied Europe after all)Thus Germans could verify theirs much more accuractly. The only exception was the Battle of Britain where Luftwaffe overclaimed by 300% - for exactly the same reason. Harryurz 09:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the Luftwaffe was the air force of a totalitarian dictatorship should be enough to cause its records to be taken less seriously than those of the Allies. And whether or not the RAF overclaimed in western Europe in 1941-42 is neither here nor there. Who says its a a myth that Luftwaffe pilots overclaimed? I have never seen any suggestion of serious, systematic overclaiming by Desert Air Force pilots; not so the Luftwaffe in North Africa. Have you? References please. Grant65 | Talk 09:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Its dangerous ground to assume the political leanings of a combatant nation should give any more or less validity to its military record. No, 'serious systematic' overclaiming did not take place by the DAF , neither by the Luftwaffe- I suggest your inferences abvoe also be referenced. As for overclaims, many books have been written where it is patently obvious that fighter pilots (of all nations) in all sincerity claimed nunbers of aircraft destroyed that in reality were not- My whole point is that the Luftwaffe claims researched stand up to scrutiny and are comparable to the Allies claims, if not slightly more accurate. All this should be in an article on its own rather than in the P-40 one. I will endevour to compile an new article and we can debate it there, as it is (Im' sure you will agree) an interesting subject!

References- I suggest a read of any of the Christopher Shores/Brian Cull series on the air war over Greece, Malta, Western Desert , and Sicily, published by Grub Street in the 1990's.Harryurz 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Inference? I'm not making any inferences --- the reference for my position is already in the article. Moreover it is, as you have alluded, the conventional wisdom. What is your specific reference (i.e. page number/http and/or actual quotation) stating that German pilots in North Africa did not inflate their claims?
The Third Reich was clearly morally corrupt at every level, including many junior officers, and it is regarded by many people as the most criminal regime in history. Reliance on its records, without careful cross-referencing is a dangerous practice. I'm not sure why anyone would want to censor a relatively mild critique of the Nazi military's records, espcially when it is relevant to the subject and comes from an article about the P-40 by a major in the USAF. Grant65 | Talk 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re specific references- I mention the whole series of Shores' books as evidence of how all fighter pilot's claims were often inflated, not specifically by the Luftwaffe in North africa. The corruptness of the Third Reich is not in issue. Reliance on ANY records without cross-referencing is a dangerous practice, I agree; this also applies to Allied records too. as for the original comment with the P-40 article, if the general consensus is to leave it in , so be it; its relevance is just my opinion as a published author. Harryurz 13:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So, Grant, your real evidence that German air victories are less credible than Allied ones is the mere fact that they were, well, made by pilots from Nazi Germany, who you don't happen to like and who must therefor be liars. Great reasoning here. Unless you find real proof for your accusations I suggest you stop with that agenda because it doesn't suit a Wikipedia article. The only argument you have is the incentive thing of the "German method" which is still very far from being proof and is likely compensated for by the FACT that Germans didn't count any shared victories. Clyde Frog84.152.114.186 15:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Italian fighter manueverability

The term maneuverability can be hard to quantify, but I'd like to see some sources on the allegedly superior maneuverability of the Mc.200 and Mc.202 / 205 over the P-40. I know the 202 was marginally faster and the 205 considerably so, but I'd like to see more data comparing the types before I'll go along with this.... most key would be turn rates (instantanoues and sustained) at different speeds, roll rates (initial and sustained) at different speeds. Acceleration, handling etc. would also be good to know

Anecdotal evidence from actual pilots in theater would be almost as good.

Drifter Bob


If the IL-FB flight simulator is to believe, then Mc.202/205 were much worse in maneuvrability than the P-40, which was actually very good!Mc.202/205 in IL-2FB are very heavy in the controls,much worse than the Bf-109G.

Axis vs Allied kill claims in Sardania / Sicilian encounters with 325 FG

I removed this statement:

"The Axis reports apparently dispute these claims. According to them, the Italian pilots of 51st Stormo, based in Sardinia, did not see action that day. The Germans of III/JG 77, which had total strength of 23 aircraft, lost 4 Bf 109s with one pilot killed."

Until it is be sited. From what I understand this is contraversial. Also I believe 325 FG had two similar battles during roughly this same period, if anyone could provide some source material on this other than the 325 FG website it would be appreciated.´

There was a discussion about this event in rec.aviation.military and cited source was Jochen Prien, German aviation historian. Unfortunately I'm not sure which Prien's book contains the information. Yes, actual German losses were 4 Bf-109's. Actual number of planes which took part to the engagement was only around 12. I have to say that it looks somewhat silly that on the other hand, Luftwaffe in North Africa claims are questioned in the article whilst meanwhile, similarly outrageous Allied claims are accepted without criticism. Obviously citations are needed.
The article needs some cleanup. It's got wealth of information but it could be bit more coherent.--Mikoyan21 09:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Footnote Five?

Does anyone know what happened to it (why it is blank) and can whoever broke it fix it

Drifter Bob

Axis vs. Allied kill claims II

I find it very annoying and POV that the article treats Allied kill claims as facts while German claims are treated as speculative. Like for example how "Caldwell *achieved* 22 victories" while Marseille "may gave shot down more than 70 P40s" and immediately mentions that those *may* be overclaimed ... while in reality the same *may* be true for Caldwell on an equal basis. This is point of view that doesn't belong here. Either treat both as speculative or both as fact.84.152.114.186 15:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)ClydeFrog

The statement regarding German pilots is referenced (a 2001 article by a USAF major). If you knows of a credible source which says that Desert Air Force pilots were frequently guilty of overclaiming, then that can be included, too. Grant65 | Talk 16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it's based not an article written by a USAF major. Said major merely did a review of a book. Funnily enough the very same review also clearly states, that the book also says "that overclaiming occurred on both sides". You just happened to let that part out. Reading the above sections of this discussion page makes it pretty obvious why. I will change this article in time if you don't.84.152.80.101 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A book review is an article. Maj Tate says: "Although the Germans did have very successful pilots in North Africa, the author is able to compare some German claims to actual losses on several occasions, demonstrating the not-too-uncommon habit of German overclaiming. The author does this not to imply that German claims were widely distorted, admitting that overclaiming occurred on both sides, but to suggest that, on occasion, things were not as they necessarily seemed.[my emphasis]" To construe that as "overclaiming occurred on both sides" (as you have) is a misquotation and distortion of Tate. The point about German claims is relevant and in context when we are talking about the reputation of the P-40. Grant65 | Talk 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Misquoting and distorting is exactly what you did by only giving those sentences relevance that you thought suit your POV. Have you even read the book or did you base your argumentation on this book's review? From what it seems you merely searched for anything supporting your view of axis overclaiming and found this book, review which itself says that overclaiming happened on both sides and doesn't go into any detail or present any such thing as "supporting facts or evidence". So if you read that book you may want to enlighten me on what facts it presents on axis overclaiming and how these compare to the allies?
Even more you might want to take a look at this article:http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hanstate.html Even the above mentioned Maj. Tate, known for being a Luftwaffe sceptic, estimates here that of Marseille's 158 claims "over 130 definite, indisputable victories" can be made. On what basis? I don't know. However that would still mean 82.3% accuracy which is by far above standard compared to an allied and axis overall overclaiming of about 2:1 each in the battle of Britain. So making Marseille look like an "overclaimer" in this article holds no ground and is inappropriate POV.84.152.113.52 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I read Brown's book several years ago, but I don't have a copy of it. The next time I am near a good library I will refresh my memory.
If the figure of 82.3% for Marseille is correct, then that is quite a poor result, relative to (e.g.) the high degree of accuracy/verifiability attributed to Richthofen. Of course Marseille was operating over enemy territory and in conditions which were generally more difficult than those experienced by Richthofen. Anyway, Marseille was not the only Luftwaffe pilot in North Africa and there is no indication that Tate's statements in his review of Brown are directed at Marseille.
Maybe it would be better to include the whole paragraph by Tate as a direct quotation in this article, at least until I can obtain some material from Brown's book. Grant65 | Talk 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
82% accuracy in claims is a poor result? Duh. Do you realize that overclaiming 3:1 was very common, in fact it was a pretty much a norm with all belligrents and sometimes, in major air battles, it was much worse (example cited in this page had overclaiming of 5:1 by Allied pilots, and there were cases of 10:1). 80% accuracy in claims would have been phenomenal, and no, I don't believe it. --Mikoyan21 09:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
i tend to assume all kill claims are at least double the actual rate, except in cases were very strict criteria were used including recovering the shot-down aircraft (i.e. physical verification of downed aircraft wreckage), such as with the AVG. I think what really needs to be done is cross references battlefield records of all the units fighting in a given area, I'm surprised more of this hasn't been done, I believe in the case of the RAF, the Germans, and the USAAF / USN / USMC such records do exist, n'est pas?
Until we have a systematic, consistant method to verify claims however I think we have to go by the official claims as reported. I wouldn't mind seeing the overclaim assertion about Marseilles removed until we have considerably more data available to verify the actual numbers.
Drifter bob 15:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting how rude some people get when one questions the credibility of their favourite German aces. Especially when the same people are so critical of Allied overclaiming.

Anyway, I finally got a chance to have a look at Russell Brown's well-researched, referenced and professional book. He has an appendix dealing with German overclaiming (pp 281-282). He begins by saying that "unintentional overclaiming by pilots of all nationalities was common..." No news there. However, he lists 24 separate dates on which the German claims against the Desert Air Force show serious discrepancies with Allied squadron records. In his words, "the most spectacular" was September 15, 1942, when JG27 claimed 19 (some sources say 20) planes, all from No. 239 Wing (112 Sqn RAF, 3 Sqn RAAF and 450 Sqn RAAF) destroyed in a series of combats just after 1715 hrs. Brown says this was broken down in Kurowski's biography of Marseille as: I Gruppe = 11 kills, II Gr = one and III Gr = 7. Marseille alone claimed seven kills in six minutes. However, Brown says squadron records show that 36 planes from 239 Wing were involved and only six were lost, one of these to friendly AA fire. That is overclaiming by a massive 200%. Brown continues" "clearly in the combat of 15 September, there could not have been seven accurate eyewitness reports, let alone twenty [emphasis in original], but Marseille's seven victory claims were accepted without question." He adds: "other recognised experten, Schorer, Homuth and von Lieres submitted a total of six further claims between them."

Brown also states that there is a lot of of evidence that the "rigorous" Luftwaffe verification system was not used by JG27 on this and other occasions. For example, on another occasion, a kill was "confirmed" by a Panzer commander who saw a "cloud of dust" after a DAF plane passed behind a sand dune! Grant | Talk 10:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this new reference material Grant65, this is excellent and really sheds some light on this issue. I hope you are not referring to me as the individual being rude I certainly did not intend to be, only fair. I will admit to some jealousy that you were able to get your hands on Russel Brown's book, I may have to bite the bullet and shell out the $80 or so it's going to cost me to get a copy shipped from Australia. Have you read the whole book if so it would be awesome if you could write a detailed review somewhere like maybe on the Amazon page. Also, if you read anything in there which sheds any new light on the performance of the P-40, tactics used, effectiveness against Luftwaffe or Reggia Aeronautica aircraft, please add it to the P-40 Wikipedia page. Drifter bob 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No Bob, it wasn't you I was referring to. Since you seem to be a P-40 afficionado, I think you would be happy if you spent $80 on Brown's book. It has lots of photos and other interesting details. I went to the local reference library to check the matter of German overclaiming and quickly noted the above details in the half-hour before closing time. I don't have my own copy, so I can't shed any light on P-40 performance, tactics or effectiveness in North Africa at the moment. But I will go back when I get a chance and attempt to answer your questions. BTW, Clive Caldwell, Air Ace, a new biography by Kristin Alexander, may also be of interest. Grant | Talk 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I'll look for that I'm excited to learn of it's existance, Caldwell is a hero of mine for several reasons. Drifter bob 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Update:it's not on Amazon but you can get the PDF http://www.ebooks.com/ebooks/book_display.asp?IID=283153
The thing is, if the Marseilles' accuracy in his claims was really around 80%, then it would have been phenomenally good - not poor at all as you claimed - probably the world record amongst the signifant aces anywhere. Which is why I don't believe it. The problem is that the article makes unreferenced swipe at German overclaiming, whilst at the same uncritically accepts equally ludicrous Allied overclaims. Obviously this is not a desirable situation. --Mikoyan21 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no "unreferenced swipe at German overclaiming"! The reference has been in the article for months. I have now updated the reference, to the original book rather than a review of it. My precis of relevant material from Brown's book can be found above.
Regarding Marseille, what I said was "If the figure of 82.3% for Marseille is correct, then that is quite a poor result, relative to (e.g.) the high degree of accuracy/verifiability attributed to Richthofen." I stand by that. In any case, the material from Brown suggests that Marseille's accuracy may have been significantly less than 82%, given that accuracy for JG27 as a whole on 15/9/42 was 26%, and Marseille alone claimed more than total Allied losses that day.
Also, the article is is not about overclaiming; it is about the P-40, and the real magnitude of P-40 losses in North Africa is a significant part of the story.
If you think there are "ludicrous Allied overclaims" then you should put {{cn}} next to them and/or provide your own references for your point of view. Grant | Talk 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Kill Claims in the article / The P40 success or lack therof vs the Luftwaffe in North Africa

Since we know for sure kill claims were exxagerated, (and not necessarily on purpose) is it ok with everybody if we use the term 'claims' or 'claimed victories' instead of 'victories' or kills' when referring to all combat kill claims in the article? Perhaps this should become a standard for all such military aviation articles. Drifter bob 17:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, one-sided claims are generally referred as such in professional aviation literacy, the term "confirmed victory" belongs - at best - personal bios and citations. As for Marseille, no, accuracy of his claims was not anywhere near 80%. IIRC, the day he supposedly shot down 17 aircraft, according to study of Allied records the real number might be 6 or so. But one ought to note that such overclaiming ratios were by no means uncommon or 'poor' in relative sense, since nearly all aces overclaimed about as much or more. Allied aces of same period were overclaiming at least as much as Marseille. Some Japanese aces overclaimed by factor of 10 or so.
And yes, the article is about P-40, hence my criticism of accepting inflated Allied combat results at face value, which I view as damaging to factual accuracy of the article. Since at the moment we don't have exact reference, we at least should add a reservation into article about Allied claims. --Mikoyan21 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the P-40 has an undeservedly poor reputation and part of the reason for that is Luftwaffe overclaiming in North Africa, whereas overclaiming by Desert Air Force pilots plays no part in that undeservedly poor reputation. Also, Caldwell, the top scoring P-40 pilot in North Africa, has been verified by post-war research as having made between 90 and 105% of the kills he claimed. If you have good quality references which say there was serious overclaiming by Desert Air Force pilots, then let's see it. Grant | Talk 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What is source is that? I've read up quite a bit of research about results of WW2 air combat, and such accuracy ratio in kill claims would be truly exceptional. I was not originally commenting on Desert Air Force (which I don't know much about) but claims of MTO P-40 groups, especially 325th, and yes, it has been documented that they overclaimed quite a bit so I doubt Desert Air Force was any different. As I said above, the fight cited in the article where they supposedly shot down 20 German fighters, actual German losses were 4 planes.
As for the reputation of P-40 and other aircraft serving in the Desert Air Force...the fact is that Luftwaffe was almost always outnumbered during fighting in Africa, yet they held air superiority nearly through entire period and I think that is far more damning than individual kill claims, which serious historians don't put much weight on anyway.--Mikoyan21 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My source for the information about Caldwell is Clive Caldwell, Air Ace a new biography by Kristin Alexander. It is very well-researched and well-referenced and I recommend it to anyone interested in fighter pilots in WW2.
You say "I was not originally commenting on Desert Air Force (which I don't know much about)..." but you "doubt Desert Air Force was any different". You can't have it both ways. If you don't know much about the DAF (and presumably its constituent national air forces) how can you say that its claiming was similar to the US Ninth and Twelfth Air Forces, or the Luftwaffe or Regia Aeronautica? All that the DAF had in common with USAAF was that they were fighting on the same side and they used P-40s; that is no basis for a claim that they all overclaimed. If you have good quality references regarding systematic overclaiming by any P-40 units in particular, then I would like to see that in the article. But please, make it serious, critical history, not stuff from wide-eyed Luftwaffe/experten fans, self-publishing on the web.
From my recent reading, I would say the poor reputation of P-40 in North Africa and the "success" of the Luftwaffe there is largely attributable to several factors:
  1. Heavy losses sustained by the DAF, caused by (a) the high risk roles that Tedder and other high commanders asked P-40 squadrons to perform, namely bomber escort and ground attack missions, while Axis fighter pilots concentrated on air superiority (as shown by the remarkable statistic that Marseille shot down only three bombers, all of them unescorted); (b) poor/outdated air combat tactics (c) ill-advised, inexperienced and undertrained DAF pilots; (d) pilots who lacked familiarity with the P-40 (e.g. the initial "familiarisation" process for the DAF in 1941 was poorly-handles and many P-40s were damaged or destroyed by DAF pilots during that period)
  2. Demonstrable overclaiming by Luftwaffe pilots, which exaggerated (a) the undeniable superiority of the Bf 109 (b) the greater experience of Luftwaffe pilots and (c) their familiarity/confidence with/in their aircraft. As Russell Brown points out, detailed DAF squadron records were not released until many years after the war, so German claims could not be cross-checked. In the meantime, quite a myth was allowed to build up. (There is no question of systematic overclaiming by the DAF largely because no-one thinks that the DAF won its struggle with the Luftwaffe; unless there is some way of measuring and weighing the overall effects of bombing and strafing missions)
While its easy and convenient to seize and obsess on any one of these factors, to the exclusion of all others, it's also lazy and doesn't do justice to the subjects concerned. Grant | Talk 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, it is well documented that RAF, USAAF and RAAF all overclaimed on other theatres; so I find it somewhat naive to believe that DAF, made up of units of those air forces, was any different. Especially as they were - as you wrote - at substantial disadvantage against Luftwaffe and common pattern is that accuracy of kill claims detoriates in such situation. Whether Caldwell's personal claims were accurate or not (does the biography cite Axis sources?) is not particularly relevant vis. whole DAF. Neither it is relevant whether the disadvantage was due to plane they were flying, or other factors (which most historians agree were more important).
Of course, this all is moot to my (and some other posters') original point, which is that the article uncritically presents Allied instance of overclaiming (July 30 air battle) as a positive proof for P-40 capabilities. If we want to bring out the subject of overclaiming, then we must be consistent of it; as of now, the article reads as if the Germans overclaimed and Allied did not.--Mikoyan21 11:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Alexander made extensive use of Axis sources in researching her book on Caldwell. No, it doesn't mean that everyone in the DAF claimed accurately. You never made clear that your original point was about the 325th FG, and you still continue to attack DAF claims, even though you have admitted you don't know much about it, and I have shown you an example of extravagant Luftwaffe overclaiming in relation to DAF P-40s.
While I don't know about P-40s in the US Ninth Air Force and Twelfth Air Force, I do think it's time that put up your sources regarding the July 30 action, instead of just repeating your accusations. Grant | Talk 13:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I made the original point to July 30 battle at discussion Axis vs Allied kill claims in Sardania / Sicilian encounters with 325 FG. Jochen Prien's book Geschichte des Jagdgeschwaders 77 (IIRC) has gathered Axis records of that fight and many others. You can find some discussion about them here. That the Luftwaffe overclaimed against DAF and other opponents is no news to me and I certainly don't find it offensive in any way [mind you, JG77 claimed 5 P-40 kills in July 30 battle versus 1 actual Allied loss]. Norwegian, Russian and Finnish researchers have extensively studied Luftwaffe claims at Northeastern Theatre and found that on average they overclaimed 3:1 and it got worse during 1944. I repeat: all air forces overclaimed and whilst not having detailed accounts about DAF performance, I very much doubt they were any different, especially as they generally did not have machine gun cameras at that point of war. But regardless of the claims, fact remains that DAF in general took a beating against LW, and as such, Luftwaffe overclaiming has little to do with positive or negative reputation of P-40. How much of it is because of the plane is other thing altogether - contribution of obsolete tactics such as Lufbery circle is well acknowledged, as is generally better pilot experience level within LW.--Mikoyan21 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you put that material from Prien in the article? I would except that I've never read the book and I am not fluent enough in German to do, even if I could easily get a copy. Discussion boards, while interesting, are not a reliable source.
You say: "Luftwaffe overclaiming has little to do with positive or negative reputation of P-40." And I disagree. I have shown you an example of extreme overclaiming by JG27; do you have any evidence of extreme overclaiming by the DAF, or are you relying on speculation about the lack of gun cameras, etc? Grant | Talk 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't read German either; I've not read Prien books myself either. I've seen them referenced several times. Discussion boards are not necessarily reliable source, true - but it works other way around too, I haven't read the Caldwell book either and I can't get one, so I have to take your word on it!
I repeat that I don't see that Luftwaffe overclaiming playing a major part in P-40 reputation. DAF might have overclaiming just as much (if anything, I see it more likely, inferior training and disadvantageous position tends to lead to that), but even if they didn't, perception on both sides of the front was that Luftwaffe was dominating fighter vs fighter combat and when they did not, it was mostly just because they did not have enough fighters. Luftwaffe also overclaimed considerably in air battles of 1941 over Eastern Front, yet I don't see any mention on I-16 article that Bf-109 superiority over I-16 is a myth since Germans overclaimed...
Drifter Bob mentioned AVG; and though it is true that their claims were more accurate than those of other contemporary Allied units, they still overclaimed about 3 to 1. Yet this does not take out anything of their achievments and nobody is claiming that "AVG superiority was a myth", since even the real results show that they were very successful. You two want to remove supposed distortion on P-40 reputation based on German overclaiming - fair enough. But I want to remove similar distortion based on Allied overclaiming, and victories of 325th over Sardinia are often brought out by P-40 aficionados as a proof of P-40's real capabilities and putting different requirements for Allied side sources and German side sources is flat out double standards, nothing else.--Mikoyan21 18:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
AVG may have overclaimed as much as 3 to 1 (I do not agree that this has been definitively proven) but remember, that is before Gun Cameras. I agree with you that all sides overclaimed inevitably, even with gun cameras two or even three planes shooting at a particular target, either at the same time or say, after it had already been 'mortally' damaged, may all claim the same target and it may show up in all three gun cameras obviously in terminal distress, but actually only one enemy aircraft was 'killed'. This sort of thing happened many times in late 1944 and 1945 when many Allied (particulalry American) fighters aggressively pounced on increasingly rare Luftwaffe targets.
But I also agree with Grant that Axis overclaiming DID contribute to the post-war reputation of the P-40 as a dog and easy prey to the 109, and I think Axis overclaiming may have spiked toward the second half of the North African campaign, in 1942 and 1943, just as you point out that it did in the North East in 1944 and for the same reasons; local conditions were deteriorating rapidly.
Finally, are you suggesting above that the P-40 vs. Bf 109 was identical or even similar to the P-40 vs. I-16? I think the ratio of casualties on both sides are vastly different, much closer to equal in the former example.
Which brings up the ultimate point here, what we really need is comparative loss figures for all squadrons in the region within different time periods, combine that with some records of flight operations and we can get a much better idea of what the 'relationship' between different fighter types really was. Lets also not forget that there were different variants of each aircraft in question and the odds of a fight varied a lot on that, P-40B/C was no match for 109F or 109G, but a P-40E was probably a dangerous challenge for a Bf109E, and they did face each other quite a bit. I would guess a P-40F/L, particularly a lightened one would fare well against a 109F or G.
Anyway all contributions here are welcome and while we may not agree on all points yours are obviously in good faith so keep 'em coming Drifter bob 20:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that all sides generally overclaimed, I think it is also dangerous to generalize and it's clear that exxagerated kill claims have distorted the reputation of the P-40, and more to the point, we know that claiming accuracy and standards varied quite a bit locally. For example, the AVG claims, which were made well before the advent of gun cameras, have been anylized to death and subject to intense debate (largely because their overwhelming success in combat did not jibe with the commonly held perception of the limited capabilities of the P-40), but regardless of whose numbers you believe, it's clear that their claims matched their actual kills more closely than many other units. This is because since they were being paid cash for each kill, verification normally depended on the recovery of a destroyed enemy aircraft.

I also disagree with your assertion that the Luftwaffe maintained air superiority throught the North African campaign, or that they always dominated the P-40, sometimes indeed it was the other way around. Caldwell wasn't the only high scoring Commonwealth Ace flying P-40's in North Africa by a long shot, and most of his kills were against German fighters. Caldwell was one of 7 double aces flying for Commonwealth forces. Several of the US squadrons like the 324th and 325th, and 57 FG, apparently had quite a bit of success. For example the 325th claimed 133 air-to-air kills while flying the P-40 from April to October 1943, almost all Bf 109s and Macchi C.202, for 17 combat losses. Even if you divide that number by three (and I believe they did have gun cameras at this point so I really doubt the figures were that far off) thats still 44 Axis fighters for the loss of 17 P-40's. In other words, even if you are very conservative about the kill claims, clearly these guys were not finding the P-40 incapable of handling front line Axis fighters - apparently it was the other way around.

I think that Grant may be on to something with his suggestion that the Germans may have been overclaiming more than the allies, especially toward the end of the North African Campaign. Relaxing the standards on kill verification even a little could be a small bone to throw to the doomed pilots facing impossible odds. Also as the chaos of the collapse of Axis forces accelerated, book-keeping standards would inevitably decline. I also agree with Grant that most of the losses suffered by some P-40 squadrons, particularly Commonwealth squadrons, were due to bad tactics and bad training, particularly poor markmanship. That is why you see such a disparity between units, some doing extremely well with the P-40, others having so much trouble that they switched back to Hurricanes. The allied forces were quite a mix of different nationalities and pilots from vastly different backgrounds and levels of experience and skill. Doctrine was often dictated from central commands out of touch with the local tactical realities, were slow to change even when clearly counterproductive. Despite all that quite a few Luftwaffe 109's ended up smoking wreckage in the Desert. That is a fact. There are a huge amount of myths about the P-40 and the purpose of the big changes I initiated in this site, was to develop a clearer picture. The primary sourced data I have provided, including such recent material as the interviews with former Soviet pilots, has demonstrated the fragility of many of these myths. Grant and many others have been adding a lot of very valuable primary source material. I welcome any additional hard data which can be brought into this to help us further clarify the picture.

On that point, getting back to this issue of the disputed kills in the air battle which took place over Sardania, there were actually two engagements in the same short period in June 1943 over Sardania in which US fighter squadrons claimed large numbers of German fighters shot down. The conuter-claims by some German researchers have been around for a while, but I am not yet convinced that these reflect the whole picture. I would like to see the source data, specifically the attrition for all German fighter squadrons within 30 days of the battle, that were within range of these two encounters. Once we have that we should adjust the wiki entry accordingly. 18:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Drifter bob 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a relavent bit of information, cited at http://www.geocities.com/raf_112_sqdn1/raf_112_squadron_claims.html as taking place 15 Sept 1942:

"A typical encounter of this sort occurred on the 15.09. To the west of El Alamein 3 Sqn RAAF and 450 Sqn RAAF Australian Squadrons, engaged in a fight, called on the 112-th and 250.Sqn’s “Kittyhawks” for help. The fight was very quickly resolved in favor of DAF, forcing JG27 to retreat. The British used methods which were effective, if slightly radical. One of the oncoming P-40’s rammed into a Messerschmitt, adding a fourth parachute canopy to the three already falling above the desert. Under one of them, for the third time, was Sergeant Young, who was wounded. (badly burned) Four squadrons lost no more than six “Kittyhawks” and four pilots in this fight. These losses are very different from the fifteen victories, including seven of Marseille, reported by the Germans. " 74.165.230.242 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Finnish Recon Fighter

Whoever added this section, I'd be really really interested to know more about this aircraft, did it see combat? Did they score any kills with it? A source for this data would be great even if it's not in English —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.166.181.194 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

I've never seen any mention that P-40M captured by the Finns was used in operational sorties. All sources have said that it was used only in evaluation flights. Perhaps a translation error? Though, it was attached to an operational squadron for a while, so who knows.
The Finnish P-40 flew one evaluation flight during the war, as lack of spares prevented it from being used operationally - however, it was attached to an operational squadron. After the war a few more evaluation flights were done, but it was sold for scrap in 1950. --MoRsE 15:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

P-40 Armor

By the way, the article contains an old myth about P-40 being well armored - it was not. Pilot armour plate was only 10mm, and US armour plate was notoriously inferior (at least in early war years). Early P-40 variants also lacked self-sealing fuel tanks. The reputation comes from it flying against some early Japanese and Italian planes which lacked armour altogether.--Mikoyan21 09:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for posting that. I have had trouble determining whether the Tomahawk I actually was put into combat in North Africa without Armor or Self Sealing tanks... I know many early war aircraft lacked them (didn't the BoB era Spit I and 109E also lack armor?) I had understood that the armor on the P-40 was pretty effective in protecting the pilot, I thought it made up the entire bulkhead behind his seat. I wasn't aware of US armor plate being inferior. I did know the P-40 did not have the kind of extra armor that later war 'tanks' like the Fw 190 had (protecting radiator, oil cooler etc.,) or the sort of 'bathtub' you would find on something like an Il-2. I'll try to look into a comparison of the thickness and coverage of the pilot armor on different aircraft.
It's typical of the mythology of WWII that a fact which is true in one theater of operations is incorrectly conflated into a general rule... the P-40 C / E was considerably better protected than the Japanese aircraft they faced in the Pacific and CBI theatres, but this does not hold true of German aircraft it faced in North Africa and the Russian front (though perhaps it did against some of the earlier Italian fighters). It's similar to much of the negative sterotyping of this aircraft.... because it couldn't turn with a zero it was "lumbering and unnmaneuverable" (when in fact it was arguably the fastest rolling and one of the tightest turning allied aircraft of the early war period) because it was slower than a Fw 190 or Me 109E it was "slow", when in fact in terms of top speed it was actually one of the faster allied aircraft at that time, certainly faster than a Ki-27, a Ki-43, a Wildcat or even a Zero (or a Hurricane or an LaGG-3) and it was the equal of a Me 109E or a Spit V, or an early Yak. So we end up with the persistant myth that the P-40 was slow and unmaneuverable. It was actually quite fast in the pacific theater (especially in a dive!), it was quite manueverable in the Med or the Russian front. Almost nobody knows about this unless they have played one of the Sims like Il-2 / Pacific Fighters (take it from the Russians to teach the Americans about our own aircraft, just like with the p-39).
Another part of this particular myth about armor is probably due to the extremely strong structure of the P-40 which was well proven in several documented mid-air collisions and ramming events, and was also testified to by Russian sources in recent interviews that were posted on the Il2 forums. Anyway I'll look into this and try to find out more about it. Thanks again for bringing this up. Drifter bob 15:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
On early Tomahawks being without armour, here's one hypothesis: the French military was dissatisfied with the quality of armour plating on its H-75s. It sounds plausible that H-81s were therefore ordered without armour, with the intention of fitting them with plates of local manufacturing upon arrival, just like DB-7s were to be equipped. PpPachy 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Depends on what version you refer to. The P-40B/Tomahawk IIA had some armour and "a start at fuel tank protection", the Tomahawk I did not. The weight of armour rose from zero to 93lb(P-40B) to 111(P-40E). The self sealing fuel tanks increased with weith of the fuel system from 171lb(P-40) to 425(P-40E). The Brits got at least 140 unprotected Tomahawk I and another 100 partially protected Tomahawk IIA. They did not recieve well protected P-40C/Tomahawk IIB before May, 1941. US pilots in the PTO mostly used though P-40Es. Furthermore WW2 fighter were usually attacked directly from behind. Since there was nothing critical in the P-40 aft fuselange, the plane could take a lot of hits in its behind. Mustangs and especially Aircobras were more vulnerable.Markus Becker02 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

References formatting

As I understand it, the template ({{cite web|...) format is essentially required for FAs, so if they're changed from that format they'll probably just have to be changed back later. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be Wikipedia without yet another retarded tug-o-war, would it? :) - Emt147 Burninate! 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent Additions to the Article, Bravo!

I really want to thank Grant65 and anyone else who has contributed to the recent additions to the article, particularly the sourced primary information about performance and tactics. God "cluster of grapes" what a sinister connotation! Great stuff guys this page has become the best general source of information I know of on one of my favorite subjects. I think we have contributed to spreading accurate knowlegdge about this aircraft quite a bit here. I truly believe a much more accurate and nuanced picture of this aircraft is emerging here than I have ever seen in 30 years of (admittedly casual) research. I hope it continues to develop and I also welcome and encourage challenges to any of the information in here. We still need to find some harder sources for some of the stuff that is sourced at websites, but I think we will get some better sources for these references soon, especially as more interviews with pilots are published and when (hopefully) some of those very expensive books by former Commonwealth P-40 pilots get made into PDF's... Thanks again to everyone who has worked on this article in any way Drifter bob 17:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Heads up new good source : RAF 112 squadron

I just found this website http://www.geocities.com/raf_112_sqdn1/raf_112_squadron_claims.html for RAF 112 squadron. It seems very well researched, with each kill claim listed often citing the type and squadron of the enemy aircraft and sometimes even including the name of the German or Italian pilot shot down. I haven't had a chance to fully examine the site yet but I am guessing this will be a very valuable resource for this article, particularly on the issue of kills vs. claims. Drifter bob 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from the link...unfortunately they seem to have Axis sources only from some engagaments, but what they have confirms what I've observed from other fronts...singularly engaged aircraft are often accurately claimed, especially bombers, but in large fighter vs fighter engagements, claim accuracy drops sharply.--Mikoyan21 12:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Congrats to Tuskegee airmen

People may not be aware, but the Tuskeegee Airmen were flying P-40's before they more famously flew P-51's. We should be on the look out for any interesting anecdotes and I may put in an entry on the Tuskegee airmen. On a personal note they diserve this long overdue credit for the excellent job they did in combat. Drifter bob 14:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to create a sub-page on the Desert Air Force

Due to the extensive and substantive information provided in this part of the P-40 story, I would propose that a new article entitled P-40 service with the Desert Air Force be created and that a brief connecting section remain in place on the main article. I am asking for consensus before making this change. Bzuk 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Feel free to write it, there is a lot of mess in this article and it need serious cleanup. Articles about many other famous aircraft need cleanup too, but it's another story. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Care to be a bit more specific ?Drifter bob 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Just from the standpoint of coverage alone, the Desert Air Force section is 1,661 words out of a total of 7,160 which is 23% of the entire article and when you add in the 649 words from the section on the Mediterranean Theater, it represents approximately 1/3 of the article. In order to give the North African campaign a full measure of attention, the introduction of a sub-article will allow the P-40's role in the conflict to be fully explored and yet not be out of proportion to the remainder of the article. Again, I am looking for consensus before action is taken. IMHO Bzuk 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
As I have said to Bzuk on his talk page, I do think we need an article focused on the Air war in North Africa, 1940-43. I would be opposed to a separate article about the P-40 with the Desert Air Force, for two reasons: (1) the DAF usage of the P-40 was so significant to the history of the P-40 and (2) the Desert Air Force article also needs improvement. While some material could be moved to the DAF article and Air war in North Africa, 1940-43, I am reluctant to significantly reduce this article, because of (1). Grant | Talk 03:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree we need an Air war in North Africa, 1940-43 article but I think also that we have far too much essays in articles like P-40 and others. All these info shouldn't be removed from Wikipedia but IMHO should be moved from articles. Maybe series of "Operational history of the xxx" should be started where all detailed info could be moved? Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 08:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an article that is more specific to the P-40, perhaps P-40 in North Africa or something to that effect and keep it aircraft specific versus trying to fill a lot of information and research into a much broader topic. -Signaleer 08:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That actually makes sense to me, I'm for it. Perhaps move the DAF info to it's own article per above, and then reduce what is in here to a summary, without going into all the details. I could do that part or grant65 or somebody else. I would like to see the basic points covered there though and then you could drill down to the P-40 in North Africa article to see all the details, like what RAF pilots shot down what experten or what Axis aircraft the P-40 did good or bad against. Drifter bob 20:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A few points:
1. According to my calculations the Desert Air Force section represents 18% of the article (1608 words/8761w). I don't think that is out of line with the historical significance of the DAF squadrons' usage of the type, i.e. as the first to use the P-40 operationally and the main user of it against the Bf 109 (arguably the best fighter plane of the first part of the war).
2. There is a lot of detail missing from the USAAF sections, and these are dominated by huge chunks of anecdotal, one-sided material rather than referenced historical material from good quality sources. Mikoyan21 has quite rightly questioned the material from Cathcart about the 325th FG; I mean there is no indication of cross-referencing with German sources at those pages.[1] & [2]
3. If the USAAF sections were brought up to standard, it would reduce the relative size of the DAF section. This discussion seems to emanate from an idea that the article is too long overall. However, the recommended length is just that, not a hard and fast rule. The P-40 is unusual inthat it was used by so many air forces and in so many theatres. And that is one of the reasons why the P-40 is notable. Other famous aircaft can be more easily discussed, in less space, because they were used by only one air force and/or in one theatre.
Grant | Talk 04:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the tag already applied to the article: "This page is 57 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." As well, the original stats that I obtained are based on the main body of text not the entire article which would include the specifications section and references/external links/ see also sections. I re-ran the word count and got the same results- the DAF/Mediterranean Theatre made up the main portion of the article (23-33%). Look at other major Wikiedia aircraft articles, B-24, P-47, F-86, F-5, F-4, Hawker Hunter, B-17 etc. and you will see some efforts to create linking articles that actually enhance the article. Now I do not have any particular "dog in the hunt" but in cursory review, the amount of information devoted to one aspect of a legendary aircraft's career is out-of-proportion to the overall aircraft history. Many researchers would attribute the use of the P-40 in the AVG as an important event. The AVG use of the P-40 is limnited to 240 words in this article. The entire mention of the role of the P-40 at Pearl Harbor is relegated to a single sentence. Taking the DAF section into a new "link" does not detract from the main article, in retrospect, it enhances the role of the P-40 in a crucial combat zone and yet does not overwhelm the main emphasis of the article which is intended to be an appraisal of the P-40. :-} IMHO Buk 05:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC).
First, as I said, there is no hard and fast rule about article size. See WP:PAPER. The B-17 Flying Fortress article is 97kB, so I suggest that would be a better article to fragment/reduce, especially as that type hardly saw service outside Western Europe.
Second, as for the proportion of the article taken up by the DAF section, I stand by what I said, -- 18% -- which is based on absolute size. I don't think it's legimate to exclude the specifications/references/external links/see also sections from the calculations.
Third, I don't have a problem with subordinate articles being created, but I do have a problem with the wholesale slashing of the DAF section, when the imbalance in the content is mostly created by the brevity of the other sections.
Fourth, we should not be swayed by the great publicity machine that is the US military-entertainment complex *LOL* The fame of the P-40 with the Flying Tigers is way out of proportion to its actual usage with and by them -- three squadrons, as opposed to the DAF's 16 P-40 squadrons. Use of the P-40 at Pearl Harbor was miniscule in the broader scheme of things (otherwise the Japanese wouldn't have sunk so many ships).
Grant | Talk 05:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My last, definitely, last comments on this topic: The object is not to obliterate the P-40 in DAF use or eviscerate this particular mention from the main article, the intention is to provide an suitable article that would be the main article on the P-40 in the DAF. It would resemble that of the "Battle of Britain" or the "Dolittle Raiders" articles. As to the preponderance of DAF emphasis, I did the figures one last time including the specifications and even the references and again, the same proportion, roughly 30% which is still the singlularly largest section of the article.

As to other Wikipedia aircraft articles of significant aircraft, in the B-17 example you found, you may note that there are four sub-articles based on the B-17. As larger subjects become unwieldly, there is a natural tendency to establish important connections to the main thrust of a story. Please note that the Supermarine Spitfire article has now spawned an equally large "Variants" sub-article that is substantive and yet does not diminish the original article.

As to emphais, regardless of your particular interpretation of the AVG role, here are two recently published works on the subject for comparison. In the latest book, "Fighter: The World's Finest Combat Aircraft- 1914 to the Present Day," edited by Jim Winchester (Bath: Parragon Publishing, 2005) there is a chapter on the P-40, amounting to six pages (one being a full-page photograph; admittedly, I have not done a word count but there are similarities to a Wikipedia aricle in style and format- the use of a specifications chart, photographs and a combat assessment of the P-40 versus the Zero). The following are the section lengths: 1. Background (1/2 page) including a sentence on the P-40 at Pearl Harbor 2. Specifications (1/2 page based on the P-40B) 3. Combat assessment (one page) 4. Operational history (two and a half pages, excluding photographs from the three pages that are used) 5. Illustrations (one and a half pages approximately). Emphasis on individual theatres: 1. AVG- one paragraph 2. DAF- 3 paragraphs. In another reference by Winchester, the "Aircraft of World War II", the Curtiss P-40 in the Desert figures more prominently in the two-page spread but again the AVG has a small paragraph, while the DAF amounts to three paragraphs of about the same length, roughly the same proportion.

The amount of information on the DAF P-40 operations appear to be based on assessing combat effectiveness. Interesting, relevant but more to do with the theatre and dynamics of battle as much as the P-40's attributes. Again, my contention is that the story of the P-40 use in the desert would be enhanced by a thorough and authoritative analysis of the missions and combat in this unique combat environment. I did say, I have no passion over this subject but I do recognize that many editors do and that this proposal is to give the P-40 its full due as a remarkable desert warrior.  :-} IMHO Bzuk 8:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Bill, I based my figure on the DAF content on both a MS Word count and number of bytes: it comes out at 18% in both cases; go figure. (Perhaps you are including the section on the RAAF in the SW Pacific?) As for the books by Winchester, I'm not sure why we should be following his example. Grant | Talk 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What about separate article Operational history of the Curtiss P-40 about all details ot the operational use not only about DAF one? This can help reduce amount of data in main article and can be start of new category with articles about operational history of the military aircraft. IMHO next article could be Operational history of the Boeing B-17 because Boeing B-17 article is one big unreadable mess with a lot of excellent data. Piotr Mikołajski 08:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
This latest comment made by Piotr Mikołajski leads back to my original comment about this particular article being split. Why not make a specific article in reference to the P-40, since the "DAF" concept would encompass not only the P-40 but a myriad of information which I do not believe someone here would be willing to tackle, since that particular article's scope would be huge (including not only the Axis but the Allies and a ton of details). -Signaleer 10:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the proposal for Operational history of the Curtiss P-40 is a good one. The only problem I can forsee is that the material on USAAF operational history would need to be improved on two pages instead of one. Grant | Talk 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this problem will be non-existing if we move (almost) all content about operational use to the article mentioned above. Of course we can't move 100% content of this subsection because small portion of text have to be left. Piotr Mikołajski 19:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Formating in RAF/DAF section

I'm not quite sure the reasons for th odd formating using columns for the 2 pics in this section, but it was causing text to overlap. While there was a note asking that the formating not be removed, it gave no explanations as to why it was there in the first place. In addition, I could find no explanation for it here on the talk page. Therefore, I have removed all that formatting from the section.

If there is a legitimate reason why this formatting should be used in only this section with these two pics, please explain it here, and build a consensus to restore it (with proper fixes, assuming the overly issues can be fixed!). Thanks. - BillCJ 19:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I set up those paragraphs up in columns for two reasons:
  1. a general rule of layout is that pics in text should alternate between right and left alignment, unless they are in a vertical row to make point (e.g. they represent a sequence of events).
  2. to avoid ugly "doglegs" within the text.
"Image:TR 000978 kittyhawk.jpg" was jammed up against the text because another editor changed the alignment of from "left" to "right"in this edit, thereby forcing it against the edge of the pic column.
So I plan to revert to previous format in that section, unless there is some problem with this that I have not foreseen(?) Grant | Talk 02:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. But honestly. I can't see how your formatting adds anything except unneeded complications, such as the editor changing the alignment. I don't know what resolution your viewing at, but on 800x600, it looks just fine as I have it - one on the left, and then one on the right further down. Please consider leaving it as is, unless you're trying to achieve some special effect I'm just not getting. Thanks. - BillCJ 02:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, since there is no real problem with appearance at the moment, I'll leave it. Grant | Talk 05:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Luftwaffe reporting of claims

On your article, you state that:

However, some researchers have suggested that German pilots in North Africa over-reported kills, by a margin of as much as 200% on some occasions.[19]

and support the statement with the following footnote:

^ For example, on 15 September 1942, JG27 claimed 19 P-40s destroyed from No. 239 Wing, while squadron records show only five aircraft lost to enemy action. Brown 1983, p. 281-2.

This is a misleading statement, as the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) was known for having painfully strict "kill" confirmation procedures for the Luftwaffe pilots, and did not allow "partial" or "shared" kills.

The Allies and Axis both inflated kill claims throughout the war, but I hardly see how your one-sided statement is relevant to the article. A better measure of final performance would be to dig up the statistics on the overall kill/loss ratio for the aircraft in that particular theatre.

Please either modify or delete the statement to improve the overall quality.

--Zeefox 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. There is no mention of "partial" or "shared" kills in that passage. The "200%" refers to the margin by which German claims exceeded the actual Allied losses. The book cited is very well researched and the citation is from an appendix on German overclaiming in North Africa. See the above discussion regarding this.Grant | Talk 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is misleading only in a sense that it implies that overclaiming was primarily done by Germans. As you said, German kill confirmation procedures were fairly strict, but it does not prevent overclaiming - I've seen German kill reports which appear to be either serious distortions or even completely made up. 200% overclaiming is not actually bad by WW2 standards (the article contains an event where Allied pilots overclaimed by 500%) and German kill claims were in fact amongst the most accurate of the belligrents. RAF was just as bad or worse, and Soviets and Japanese were the worst overclaimers of all. There is a Japanese ace who claimed 300 air victories - Japanese researchers narrowed it to "perhaps twenty". --Mikoyan21 08:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, when we have a good quality source that shows overclaiming by P-40 pilots was significant, it can be included in the appropriate part of the article. Grant | Talk 13:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

New Osprey book

Hate to interrupt the fascinating if endless debates over Allied vs. Axis kill claims, but just wanted to give an FYI, there is a new osprey book on "Soviet leand lease fighter aces of WW II" which apparently has a lot of info on P-40 use by the Soviets. I'm buying it and will be adding any pertinent data I find there to this page. 74.165.239.146 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool, looks good. Thanks for the tip. Binksternet 23:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The information on leading Soviet P-40 aces which I added a couple of months ago to the P-40 pilots section is from this book, which I also placed in the bibliography. Baclightning 06:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Warhawk

"Warhawk" was the official name for the P-40 in US service. The usual practice for US aircraft is to list them by their US service name. FOr the same reason, C-47 Skytrain is not at Douglas C-47. Yes, the P-40 was used in other nations under other names, but the naming conventions specify US aircraft are to be listed by their US name. I'm not going to push to rename the article at this time, even though I could. - BillCJ 05:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) speaks specifically about the P-40 and the DC-3 (curiously, speaking of "Douglas DC-3" as a U.S. military aircraft) as follows:
I agree. I believe "P-40" was the official name and the common name, and "Warhawk" is mentioned in the 2nd par anyway.Grant | Talk 05:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, "P-40" is its designation, not its name! The US began issuing popular names during WW2, and AFAIK, "Warhawk" was the name for the P-40. There is nothing wrong with noting that in the first line, as it is a US designed and built aircraft. THere are other cases that are similar: The T-6 Texan is known as the Harvard in commonwealth service, yet there seems to be no problem having it at the US designation/name. Are we going to have to move that one now? - BillCJ 06:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I see both arguments as valid, the fact that the P-40 had been called Warhawk, Kittyhawk and Tomahawk does tend to support the contention that it is an exception to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft) rule. IMHO Bzuk 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

Three Bills in one discussion also requires a naming policy!
BillCJ, by "name" I mean "common name", which in the case of US military aircraft is generally the numerical "designation" ("B-17", "F/A-18", etc). Warhawk seems to have barely been used for everyday purposes.
Bzuk, I take the point that we this article is an exception to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). If we were to follow the general and official Wikipedia naming convention we should move it to P-40. FWIW I disagree with the convention in regard to US military a/c, and believe we should include the manufacturer's name, in accordance with international naming procedure, i.e. "Manufacturer Z-00", which would make "Curtiss P-40" correct in any case.
Anyway, none of the above applies in this case: Boracay Bill has identified the correct policy, which specifically states that this article is named correctly at present. Grant | Talk 08:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

P-40 References from Patrick Masell

A lot of statements about the P-40's performance seems to come back to an internet article written by Patrick Masell in 2002. In a cursory search on his name, I could not come across any publications other than internet articles. Now that doesn't always mean anything but usually a historian of some import has other published works and has gone through some peer or publishers' review in order to have an authoritative and accepted work. I read Masell's P-40 article and could not find any corresponding reference sources although there were allusions to other sources and overall, although well-written, it looked to be merely an author's opinions. The line: "Hopefully further research (and perhaps this article) will help to vindicate the Warhawk and destroy the myth of the frail Zero's superiority." seems to be suspicious in that it is stating a position that is not yet backed up by research. FWIW Bzuk 06:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

==Most of these references can be linked to other sources, like comparing the speed and climb of a P-40 to an Me 109. We should go through and replace the references to this website.Drifter bob 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done

Everyone — for helping to get this article to B-class standard. Grant | Talk 03:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

>>Thanks to everybody, I was kind of the one who started the revamp of the page by putting in all the stuff from the Osprey books and some other sources. I want to keep improving this entry and get it to 'A' level. well done so far folks and thanks a lot, right now this is the best general resource on the P-40 available anywhere that I know of. Drifter bob 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Enhanced Technical Stats

Can anyone locate links or cite books which have such data as roll rate, turn rate, acceleration, speed at sea level / mid / high altitude, climb rate at multiple altitudes, dive speed, armor, ammunition firing time etc. etc.? The wikipedia entries on fighters right now contain the same data which most books include, this entry has much more information on combat performance, numbers of aces, use in different theaters etc. than any book I know of, but I'd also like to see more hard statistics for all WW II aircraft, the kind of thing which is in all flight Sims now. There should be a place to find this kind of information, where else but Wikipedia? Maybe as a seperate or sub-page possibly?

I'd also like to see basic performance data (top speed, initial climb rate, etc.) for each variant, not just one or two which you usually see. Would it be possible to put in a performance or technical specs sub-page? Does anyone like that idea?

Drifter Bob Drifter bob (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Two websites which give a lot of hard data and genuine flight test reports on World War 2 aircraft are http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html/ and a 'spin-off' /www.spitfireperformance.com/ The information available for the Tempest V http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html is fantastic. Are there templates available for this kind of data? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any interest in doing a breakdown of major P-40 types as was done in the Spit page? There is a pretty significant difference in armament and performance between P-40 B/C, P-40 E/K, P-40 F/L and P-40N/M types. Drifter bob (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I went ahead and started this on the comparison page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_P-40_variants#P-40.2C_P-40_B_.2F_C_.28RAF_.22Tomahawk.22_and_.22Tomahawk_II.22.29

Drifter bob (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"America´s 100,000" by F.H. Dean! A goldmine of information on american WW2 fighters. Roll rate of a P-40 was 135 degrees per second at 360mph indicated air speed, the P-40E made 95 at 275mph. Max. safe dive speed was 480mph for a P-40E, climb rate(P-40K) was 2000 feet per minute at sea level, 2250fpm at 9000 feet and 1800fpm at 15,000 feet. Time to reach 10,000 feet was 5 minutes, 12.5 for 20.000 feet. Merlin powered P-40Fs were a bit better, but not much.Markus Becker02 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

RAF WIN/LOSS Stats

Thats a very interesting table. What is the source for it? I also read in Nicky Barr biography book that the No's 3 and 112 RAF squadrons were the best fighter squadrons in terms of air to air victory ratios in the RAF. Does anyone have any information on the breakdown of which fighter type each RAF squadron was equipped with and how they performed? I'd also be curious how the various German and Italian squadrons performed with different types. This also ties in with the theme of the major problems with transitioning aircraft, adequately training on new types (which Caldwell talked about a lot) and using squadrons and particular fighter types effectively. Barr complained that squadrons which had done well in air to air combat were made to do ground attack missions and squadrons which had struggled in air to air combat were made to do escort and fighter sweeps etc.

Anyway thanks grant for finding that good information there Drifter bob (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries Bob. Source is Russell Brown, p. 259 (it's there under the table). I have a lot of notes from Brown and only just got around to compiling the table. He appears to have been the first to have studied the squadron records. Even if the DAF claims are exaggerated, they are strikingly at odds with the conventional image of the P-40.
I don't know much about the documentation/availability/reliability of German/Italian stats, although Brown suggests that they are less reliable than both the DAF squadron records and German records from the battle of Britain.
Brown and/or Andrew Thomas may have details of when the various marques of P-40 came into service with the DAF. I know that Caldwell regarded the Kittyhawk as an improvement on the Tomahwak only in terms of armament and generally liked both. Grant | Talk 03:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right, it does not jibe with the conventional image of the P40. Same goes for the US fighter squadrons in the CBI which had even better records throughout the war, the RNZAF, the Russians, and the US fighter groups I studied in the Mediterranian theater such as the 325th and 57th FG. As for the book.. I saw the reference but missed the name of the book. Russell Brown is the author I presume? What is the title? I'd like to get the book. Drifter bob (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Brown's only book is Desert Warriors: Australian P-40 Pilots at War in the Middle East and North Africa, 1941-1943, 1983. Grant | Talk 03:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


Very detailed source on P-40 use in RAF

I found this by accident just now looking up the P-40L. I wonder if we can use some of those photos.

http://www.3squadron.org.au/MacK1/The%20Kittyhawk%20Mk_IIa%20(P-40L)%20in%203%20Sqn%20RAAF%20Service.htm

Drifter bob (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I added a screenshot of a P-4 as depicted in the 2004 motion picture Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow for two reasons:

  1. This section could benefit from the addition of an image.
  2. The film in question is the most recent to depict the P-40 albetit in a highly fictionalized form.

Marcd30319 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Be prepared, the image was previously removed by other editors as being an issue of {WP:Weight}. FWIW, it certainly is not the best illustration of a popular culture reference. Bzuk (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC).