When I said Russian conditions were ideal I knew exactly what I meant.

 

Aerial combat was most often below 5000 meters since the the tac-air battle was the battle the Russians and Germans fought. Weather conditions for air combat aside from the winter and autumns and early springs were fair to good along the Eastern Front that deep inside the Eurasian landmass. The radial engined FW-190 early models was built best for Russia.

 

The Hawks were designed for combat below 5000 meters operating from primitive airstrips. THAT is why Russia's experience matters. THEY as users met the design requirements and intended use profile. 

 

I don't believe a Russian mechanic who tore down Allison engines on P-40s can be ignored. I don't believe a Russian combat pilot who flew one can be ignored.

 

Sorry, but that data is useful. You see, I considered every argument you raised before I posted the Russian evidence.

 

I expected the same thing for the P-40 that I expected for the P-39 from the Russians . In fact I expected the truth to be different from the "taught myth" we Lerd Lease get and I found it. The Russians had the same exact problems we had, guns jammed, engines wore out rapidly, and the aircraft was worthless above 7000 meters as a dog-fighter. Hit and run or DIE was the only way to survive in it. CBI actual combat showed this on our side.

 

You have a copy of the Osprey Book on the Warhawk versus the Oscar during Ichi-Go?  If not, get it. It will enlighten you. The Warhawk FAILED despite the kill ratios.

 

H.

       

   

     

 

 

And lose the illusions.

 

H.

and lose the illusions.

 

The point of the Osprey book was "who accomplished their air mission in China, not who killed the other in a better kill ratio?"

 

The Japanese won the air battle as well as the ground campaign. That is all that matters. 

 

H.

I think blaming the P-40 for the success of Ichi-Go is a bit unfair (and I may be misunderstanding you, Hamlicar).  For one thing, if taken as a whole, Ichi-Go was a failure.  Yes, it pushed the Chinese back considerably and endangered the B-29 bases in China--but this is the KMT we're talking about here, which rarely was in any condition to fight the Japanese well, and the decision had already been made to move the B-29s to the Marianas due to the abysmal supply problems over the Hump.  Elsewhere, Ichi-Go failed miserably as the British stomped the Japanese at Kohima/Imphal.

 

I think you're both right and you're both wrong.  The P-40 was a great fighter that, in the hands of a good pilot, could overcome the fact that it was not particularly good above 15,000 feet and that it couldn't turn very well.  Because of its weight, it was great in the vertical, and the guys who learned how to use the P-40 that way were deadly; to quote Geoffrey Perret, the P-40 was made to bushwhack opponents.  As such, the Red Baron would've loved it. 

 

It was, however, not the be-all and end-all of Allied fighters.  The fact that it stayed in production until late 1944 was due to its easy maintenance and rugged construction--it kept its pilots alive and allowed them to live long enough to get good.  However, as good as the P-40 was, there were tons of P-40s who met their end at the hands of better German and Japanese pilots--I disagree with you, Rocky, in that the Germans avoided dogfighting the P-40.  Hartmann didn't: not because he thought the P-40 was a bad fighter, but because he knew the overwhelming majority of Russian pilots were poor stuff.  Marseille hacked down dozens of P-40s, but he was something of a unique case, being such a deadly shot.  Nishizawa and Sakai had no particular fear of any Allied fighter, because they were that good and had that kind of self-confidence. 

 

It comes down to the pilot, as usual.  Put a guy like Caldwell or Scott behind a P-40 and look out; nothing is safe, whether it's an obsolescent Ki-27 or Bf-109E, or it's an advanced Ki-84 or Fw-190.  Those guys knew how to get the most out of the P-40.  Put some half-trained Russian or a Brit whose just come off a tour in cannon-armed Hurricanes, and they're going to be at a severe disadvantage.  They don't know how to use the P-40's strengths.  They wouldn't know how to use the P-51's strengths or the F-22's strengths, if such aircraft were available to them.  Some Russian guy with six hours in the air could be tooling along in a Su-27, and a Luftwaffe experten like Hartmann would still shoot his ass down.

 

Remember all the debates we've had over the Spitfire and the Mirage III?  Both could be argued as being hopelessly flawed--but all the top British aces flew Spitfires, and all the top Israelis flew Mirages.  There's something going on there.  We can debate engines and kill ratios all day, but like von Richthofen said, it's the guy in the crate.

I just drop in to say that that's one superbly interesting page behind that link. The men and their stories bring WW2 aerial combat alive better than most, plus the interviewer is also up to the task.

All the top British aces flew Spits because the guys flying other planes were shooting at things on the ground.  The P-40 is an early war allied fighter and the lack of range can be forgiven.  The worst thing about the plane is that they want for an inline because Europeans (who must know all about it right?) said the frontal area was the big deal with drag.  Notice how the inline was dropped completely after the war and how most of the best planes of the war were radial (F4U, F6F, P-47, FW-190, all Japanese planes save Ki-61 which was vastly improved when a radial was fitted). 

 

The P-40 did stack up well against its adversaries and I take all of the pilot interviews with an ocean of salt.  There were way too many prejudices.  For example when the Spitfire was tried in the US it was judged unsafe, especially in weather.  The P-38 did well in the PTO and MTO but was looked down upon in the ETO.  The P-38 was not just preferred in the PTO for range reasons and two engines it was judged as a superior fighter when looking at the fight itself only, 180 degress from what they said in the ETO.

 

Against the Zero and Ki-43 the P-40 was superior in all areas save climb and turn.

Against the 109 it was superior in all areas save climb.