Most Underrated WWII Fighter

By: PhantomII - 27th April 2005 at 04:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Most Underrated World War II Fighter

I did this topic a good while back, but obviously new members have joined and I want to see what people consider to be the most underrated fighter or World War II. There are several candidates, but I would have to say I believe the single most underrated fighter of World War II is undoubtedly the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk series. The P-40 was, along with the Bell P-39 Airacobra, the only thing available to stem the tide of the Japanese advance in the Pacific. It provided a readily available source of fighters for the British (who made extensive use of it as a fighter and fighter/bomber in the North African desert as well as a reconaissance airplane over Europe) as well as for Russia who was reeling in the face of stiff German opposition. It of course as everyone knows also provided the mount for the American Volunteer Group, the famed Flying Tigers. I must stress that the AVG was not the only unit to have lots of success flying the P-40. Other famed groups include the 23rd Fighter Group, which absorbed the remnants of the AVG after their disbandment in 1942, as well as the 325th Fighter Group, the famed Checkertail Clan. It was squadrons of the 325th flying P-40's that were primarily responsible for the rather famous Palm Sunday Massacre in which dozens of Luftwaffe transport aircraft were destroyed while on their way to deliver troops to the desert. Additionally, the fighter escort was successfully fought off, but the supposed "inferior" P-40's (along with a few Spitfires as well). Additionally, there are at least two other incidents where 325th P-40's fought off Bf-109's with two-to-one odds (the P-40's being outnumbered in both cases by about 2 to 1), and not only did they fight them off, but they were successful in destroying slightly over half of the attacking enemy force in each case. Now, the 325th had some damn fine pilots, but if the P-40 was really that bad would they have succeeded as they did?

I believe it was a combination of the two. The P-40 was also rather successful in the service of the Royal New Zealand Air Force, where it was credited with around 100 Japanese planes destroyed, for relatively few losses in exchange. The P-40 was also quite a capable fighter-bomber, and was capable of carrying a fairly wide variety of weapons including bombs of anywhere from 100 pounds to 1,000 pound weapons. 3.5-inch rockets were also carried in three-round "Bazooka" type tubes. Recon cameras were carried on some models as well as the usual drop tanks to increase range. A fighter group in the Pacific experimented with P-40N models to fit them with two 1,000 pound bombs, one 75-gallon drop tank, and they were able to hit targets several hundred miles from their base with little trouble. While most sources would claim the P-40's maximum load carrying capability to be in the area of 500 to 1,000 pounds, loads of over 2,500 pounds were routinely carried in the later stages of the war. In fact, the standard air-to-ground load was two 500-lb. bombs and a drop tank, at least on all later models. It was the P-40 (along with the Hurricane and others) that was a huge contributing factor to Field Marshall Erwin Rommel's ultimate defeat in the sands of North Africa. P-40's launched from carriers in the Mediterranean helped to resupply Allied forces under the code name Operation Torch, while on the Eastern European Front, Russian pilots waged fierce battles against the Nazi war machine. In their Lend-Lease Hurricanes, P-40's, and P-39's (the Airacobra being a favorite among Russian pilots), they were able to hold off the Germans and ultimately push them back. Of course newer planes soon joined the fray, but the P-40 was a very important part of the defense of the Soviet Union, and many aces flew her. In the Pacific, P-40 fighter groups slugged it out with the Japanese until the very end of the war, with Warhawks being used in all manner of missions. The very first American ace of the war achieved that fame using the P-40.

The P-40's air-to-air combat performance is often questioned, and in many run-of-the-mill "history" books, it isn't highly regarded, but I challenge people to seek out the truth. In reality, the P-40 had several positive aspects to its performance. Often said to not be very agile, this in reality was not the case. The P-40 had the tightest turning radius of ANY American fighter...yes, even the P-51. It also has a very fast rate of roll, yes even faster than that of the Mustang. At low altitudes to medium altitudes the performance of the P-40 is in fact very good. It is only when it reaches the higher altitudes (above 20,000 feet generally) that performance starts to fall off, namely in rate of climb. This also plagued the P-39 Airacobra. It wasn't so much the design of the airplane was it was the simple fact that the Allison engines that powered the P-40 (and P-39) were not equipped with two-stage turbo superchargers. At altitudes below 20,000 feet, the P-40 was actually very good. In fact, the famed Japanese Zero ace Saburo Sakai has been quoted as saying that Japanese pilots generally felt the P-40 was the most dangerous Allied opponent they faced at low-altitudes. (They considered the P-38 the most dangerous up high and the F4U Corsair the most dangerous overall.) In fact, when facing the Bf-109 in particular, P-40 pilots soon learned that they could turn tighter and roll much faster than the Bf-109. It wasn't until the later models that the speed advantage on the Bf-109 was so marked as to be a serious disadvantage (The E/F models were the most typical Bf-109's and the F model was no more than 20 miles per hour faster than the fastest P-40 variants). The biggest advantage the Bf-109 had was in rate of climb, and of course this can be an important part of battle. Nonetheless, the P-40 more than proved itself to be a worthy opponent for the Bf-109. The Fw-190 was a much greater challenge, but the P-40 even managed to score victories against the Focke-Wulf from time to time if flown right. The Japanese Zero is one of the few airplanes of the time able to turn tighter than the P-40, but as such it was slower and obviously much less durable. P-40 pilots learned to play to their respective strengths (speed, dive, and concentrated armament) to defeat the Zero. (Take note the AVG actually never faced the Zero...they faced the Ki-43 Oscar which was very similar in appearance to the Zero although slightly more agile yet a bit slower and more lightly armed...and flown by the Japanese Army Air Force and not the Japanese Navy.)

The P-40 was also durable, with many of its pilots making it home with tremendous battle damage. It could certainly take more damage than the P-51, although not as much as the P-47 (which also had the advantage of having a radial engine which didn't require coolant....in any in-line engined plane if the coolant is hit and leaks out the engine will seize). The P-40, beginning with the AVG, was well-known to be a very good diving airplane, and airspeeds of over 500 miles per hour were reached, with the airplane being strong enough to pull out of such dives. This goes back to the incredible durability of the airplane. The armament was also good, at least beginning with the P-40E, which had six .50 caliber machine guns. The earlier P-40B and P-40C models (as used by the AVG) were armed with two .50 caliber guns and four .30 caliber guns, which was more than enough to deal with most Japanese aircraft of the era. The six .50 cal. guns on the F and later models (aside from the L which had four) were plenty to deal with the German and Italian fighters the P-40 would encounter.

Sorry for the long-winded post, but I genuinely feel that the P-40 is greatly mistreated by many books and some historians, and I feel it is my duty to defend her. I hope I can change at least one person's opinion about her.

So, what's your choice for World War II's most underrated fighter plane?

As an aside I also would like to have honorable mention go to the Bell P-39 Airacobra, Hawker Hurricane and Messerschmitt Bf-110.

Sorry for the other thread. I didn't space my paragraphs apart, so it was hard to read for some I'm sure. Hopefully this revision is better. And no huge picture to take up bandwidth. I suppose those can come later if necessary.

By: PhantomII - 27th April 2005 at 04:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Corsair, thanks for your input. Could you re-post this in the other thread? (It's easier to read and doesn't have the huge picture on it.)

Good mention on the Wildcat though. I knew there was one more I was thinking about.

By: PhantomII - 27th April 2005 at 16:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I would say that in the answer is yes to a certain extent. If you look at how the Spitfire evolved, it went from the Spitfire I which could hit about 360 miles per hour to the later Griffon powered models which were capable of well over 430 miles per hour and could reach altitudes of over 40,000 feet. By the same token, the airframe was changed a lot (including clipped wings among other things), and while operational P-40's never saw these changes, the XP-40Q was given a more powerful Allison engine and along with several airframe changes it was capable of hitting over 420 miles per hour and could reach altitudes of about 40,000 feet or so. It was simply considered redundant because by that time the similar performing P-51 was readily available.

And I don't think the Spitfire, as beautiful as it was/is, was even a perfect airplane. It always suffered from poor range. This was something that in later model P-40's was able to be somewhat cured, and although the range was never near that of the P-51 (not many single-engined fighters were) Fighter Groups in the Pacific were able to get a fairly good mission radius even with a load of 500 or 1,000 pound bombs. The Spitfire was also fairly fragile, compared to its stablemates the Hurricane and Typhoon and Tempest. I'm not saying the Spit wasn't a good plane, but it wasn't perfect (although very aesthetically pleasing to look at). Neither was the P-40, but it was certainly not as bad as many "historians" would have you believe.

As far as adaptability and versatility outside the simple realm of engine and airframe changes, I don't think anyone can argue that the P-40 wasn't versatile. Beginning with the P-40E, the airplane was able to cary an ever widening variety of weapons, including bombs of various sizes as well as rocket tubes and even an early version of napalm was carried. The six .50 caliber guns were useful for both air-to-air combat and ground attack, and as I mentioned the airplane was sturdy, so it could withstand damage that would bring the mighty Mustang down.