Begging your pardon, Baron, but you're getting the P-40N and the XP-40Q confused. It was the XP-40Q which could reach 422 mph, largely thanks to a shallower chin radiator and a bubble canopy, but it was only built in prototype form. The P-40N was the last of the production P-40s for combat service, and they were mostly relegated to fighter-bomber duty. Their top speed was only 340 mph. I suppose it was possible that P-40Ns serving in Italy as fighter-bombers might've been bounced by Bf-109Gs during their sorties, but in that case, the best hope for the P-40s would've been to jettison their bombload and try to out-maneuver their faster opponents.
I recall that the only time the F4F Wildcat encountered Bf-109Gs was over Norway in late March 1945, and though it was lop-sided (four FAA Wildcats against eight Bf-109s), the fight ended a triumph for the British, with three Bf-109s destroyed and the rest heading for home as fast as they could go. The Wildcat was slower than the P-40, but more maneuverable, and those British carrier pilots would've been far better trained than their RAF counterparts.
Yours,
Paul
Bf 109 vs P-51 Mustangs
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
- Location: Utah
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
- Location: Utah
Last thoughts on range. The Me 110 had better range than the 109, or Hurri's & Spits, but what good was it if it couldn't fight for beans when arriving at battle zone? Range is not near as important as fighting ability.( again, I didn't say it wasn't important, I said "not as" important ).
And the Mustang also particpated in short range missions where its range offered no advantage. 38 had fairly good range, but did not have a very good kill-loss rate in ETO.
And the Mustang also particpated in short range missions where its range offered no advantage. 38 had fairly good range, but did not have a very good kill-loss rate in ETO.
Well, the idea of a long-range, twin-engined, two-seat escort fighter was de rigueur in the 30s, Baron, but it sure was shot to the Devil by actual combat experience, eh? At least the Bf-110 did better in other roles.
Interesting how the P-38 didn't live up to its potential in the ETO. By the time they ironed out its bugs, the decision was made to re-equip every P-38 outfit in the 8th AF with P-51s, and relegate the big twin-boomed fighter to fighter-bomber missions in the 9th AF. But at least it reigned supreme in the Pacific. Heck, the Lightning was made for the vast reaches of the Pacific.
Yours,
Paul
Interesting how the P-38 didn't live up to its potential in the ETO. By the time they ironed out its bugs, the decision was made to re-equip every P-38 outfit in the 8th AF with P-51s, and relegate the big twin-boomed fighter to fighter-bomber missions in the 9th AF. But at least it reigned supreme in the Pacific. Heck, the Lightning was made for the vast reaches of the Pacific.
Yours,
Paul
"Well, the idea of a long-range, twin-engined, two-seat escort fighter was de rigueur in the 30s, Baron, but it sure was shot to the Devil by actual combat experience, eh? At least the Bf-110 did better in other roles.
Interesting how the P-38 didn't live up to its potential in the ETO. By the time they ironed out its bugs, the decision was made to re-equip every P-38 outfit in the 8th AF with P-51s, and relegate the big twin-boomed fighter to fighter-bomber missions in the 9th AF. But at least it reigned supreme in the Pacific. Heck, the Lightning was made for the vast reaches of the Pacific. "
Did P38s down Admiral Yamamoto?
How about Mosquitos for old fashioned 30's thinking?
didn't the wooden airframe contribute to its low radar profile......
Does anyone know how the Mossie stood up to Me109s & Fw190s?
Interesting how the P-38 didn't live up to its potential in the ETO. By the time they ironed out its bugs, the decision was made to re-equip every P-38 outfit in the 8th AF with P-51s, and relegate the big twin-boomed fighter to fighter-bomber missions in the 9th AF. But at least it reigned supreme in the Pacific. Heck, the Lightning was made for the vast reaches of the Pacific. "
Did P38s down Admiral Yamamoto?
How about Mosquitos for old fashioned 30's thinking?
didn't the wooden airframe contribute to its low radar profile......
Does anyone know how the Mossie stood up to Me109s & Fw190s?
Banzai!
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
- Location: Utah
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
- Location: Utah
I wish I had my local library's copy of Famous Bombers of the Second World War, but I can state with a good degree of certainty that late bomber and photo-recon variants of the Mosquito were hot performers, Baron. The late fighter-bomber and night-fighter variants were just slightly less hot.
Yours,
Paul
Yours,
Paul
The discussion was, according to the thread header and my previous comments, based upon on the 109 vs P51 in concurrent timeframe theatre variants. Rather obtusely in an irrational attempt to justify your position, you've now chosen to vary it from the particular to the general. "Go directly to Gaol. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200".Black Baron wrote:Last thoughts on range. The Me 110 had better range than the 109, or Hurri's & Spits, but what good was it if it couldn't fight for beans when arriving at battle zone? Range is not near as important as fighting ability.( again, I didn't say it wasn't important, I said "not as" important ).
And the Mustang also particpated in short range missions where its range offered no advantage. 38 had fairly good range, but did not have a very good kill-loss rate in ETO.
When comparing something as disparate in terms of performance as an Me-110 versus a Spitfire of any variant, whilst endurance is still a consideration, those other performance factors assume a naturally ascendant priority which render endurance the least of one's worries. Realigning your premise to argue from such a standpoint is obtuse.
And to point out the second error in your assertion, my debate was reference endurance not range, two quite distinctly different parameters which had you any salient aviation knowledge or experience, it might be reasonably presumed you would appreciate. Hence it appears "beyond your 'ken" was not only appropriate, but an accurate observation.
Lastly endurance, where you don't have it, is all important in terms of "fighting ability". Whether in terms of loiter time or as an engagment time or manoeuvring (boost) limitation.
"Pathfinders" didn't operate in formations TMK.Paul_9686 wrote:I believe they did, Greenhorn, if by "Pathfinders", you mean squadrons which fly ahead of the heavy bombers like Lancasters and drop incendiaries/flares to light up a target area for the big stuff.
Yours,
Paul
They did form Squadrons, but pathfinder Mosquitos operated individually ahead of the bomber stream dropping coloured flares to denote the aiming point for the stream to unload on.
Reason for use of the Mosquito was that it was a twin (night), had cruising speed to get there before the bombers and manoeuverability (speed) to evade the intercepters, and of course it could carry the necessary flare load whilst having the range to reach the target. Two crack crew (navigator and pilot) consisted of select experienced individuals renknowned for their DR navigational skill over a blacked out continent in atrocious weather, ability to find and put the load accurately on the target etc.
Unfortunately or should I say fortunately, the resultant fires from the mix of incendiaries and HE from the first few bombers to unload following the pathfinder often resulted in the stream misidentifying that point as the aiming point. A messy and imprecise business. When you consider that many of the Lanc and Halifax 'Captains' were terrified out of their wits 19 or 20 year olds who couldn't drive a car and barely an aeroplane, they made a pretty good job out of a damned hard ask.
-
- Supporter
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:03 am
- Location: Utah
The discussion was, according to the thread header and my previous comments, based upon on the 109 vs P51 in concurrent timeframe theatre variants. Rather obtusely in an irrational attempt to justify your position, you've now chosen to vary it from the particular to the general
The subject of range, or endurance is not limited to the 109 & P-51. I did not change subject to the general. If you had read my post, you would see a comment also about the 51. I also mentioned the 38 which you either ignored or missed. Your comment about the performance discreptancy between the 110 & Spit is something that was not known at the time of the BoB, therefore your point is moot.
endurance is important as I mentioned before, but not "all" important as you mentioned. You are still incorrect in your assumption. comprehending this is obviously beyond your ken.
The subject of range, or endurance is not limited to the 109 & P-51. I did not change subject to the general. If you had read my post, you would see a comment also about the 51. I also mentioned the 38 which you either ignored or missed. Your comment about the performance discreptancy between the 110 & Spit is something that was not known at the time of the BoB, therefore your point is moot.
endurance is important as I mentioned before, but not "all" important as you mentioned. You are still incorrect in your assumption. comprehending this is obviously beyond your ken.