View Full Version : P40E vs. BF-109F

11-28-2004, 05:06 PM
I have been playing the various El Alamein Campaigns by Bird Brain. I have found these planes to be a pretty close match up. I don't think this mirrors real life. Did the luftwaffe have much respect for the P-40? I know they warned each other about the 40's superior turn radius. Which had the better dive ability? The 109 certainly climbs better. It seems, in this game at least, that the 109 can easily outturn the P-40 which goes against the little I have read. I realize that the AI is not good to compare with, since they can UFO around. Can anyone elaborate on their relative performance and real life combat records? I am especially concerned with the American and British pilots in the Med/North African theater.

11-28-2004, 05:50 PM
i recall reading somewhere that marsaille shotdown five P40's in a single sortie, several with mg's after his cannon had jammed.

But Marseille was not your typical pilot, even by experten standards

11-28-2004, 05:55 PM
This is interesting:


11-28-2004, 06:34 PM
This will tell you how well the 325th did with its P-40s.


11-28-2004, 06:44 PM
Interesting... most 109's in this game seem to be very good turners. I have never read anything that indicated a 109 was a turn fighter as it is currently modelled...especially the G models. I would expect an F model 109 to climb well, be faster and accelerate better and be a great energy fighter against P-40's but in a twisting turning horizontal to downward dogfight the F should lose as the Warhawk has better roll and turn rates.

If I were a 109 pilot, I would always have my nose pointed skywards when turning with a warhawk and I doubt the warhawk would catch me....this is historically speaking, not necessarily game speaking. In the game, I've found the warhawk to outturn the F model, but I haven't tested that online since PF came out so I don't know how it is now.

11-28-2004, 06:59 PM
sigh the P40 outturns any 109 in this game period
early 109s are no match for a P40 on equal terms

another thing is the rollrate of the P40 wich is rediculous at 500+ ,ill even bet it outrolls the FW190.

i dont know how in the world someone gets the idea the 109 turns better then the P40 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

11-28-2004, 11:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
i recall reading somewhere that marsaille shotdown five P40's in a single sortie, several with mg's after his cannon had jammed.

But Marseille was not your typical pilot, even by experten standards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that story is often told but the fact is it's not true.

Galway your in OZ so if you are interested I would look for a book called "Desert Warriors" by Russell Brown it has much info on No3 RAAF who was involved in that combat.When a surviving pilot was told about the claims for that day he could not stop luaghing.

11-28-2004, 11:56 PM
Marseille was the baddest of the bad tho

no question

11-29-2004, 12:56 AM
jeah he realy sucked^^
that's for sure.

correct P40 outturns Bf109-F, wich climbs better below 2000m and about equal (i think, or at least the P40 will get better at 2000+) at 2000m.

trust me, i had to down 14 of them yesterday^^, pretty nice fights IMO, and P40 does outturn the F4, problem is once the 109 is behind the P40 unexpected (which tends to happen in a "Fureball") the P40 will be put out of action quickly.

BTW: as we are with the P40 when i was flying that bird yesterday i got bounced by a FW shooting my wings, both had big wholes and i was able to see the ground thru them, but turning ability and overall plane handling did not suffer, in fact i shot 2 109F's later in this plane and landed because i was ooA.

11-29-2004, 03:09 AM
Me109 dumps energy and accelerates better than P40.This is the case.

11-29-2004, 04:12 AM
He shot down so many, but I think Galway may be referring to Marseille's combat against the Tomahawks of 5 Squadron, South African Airforce on June 6, 1942. Apparently got six of them using his own particular brand of flying and marksmenship. Check out explaination and diagram in "Luftwaffe Fighter Aces" by M Spick. The Germans would have been familiar with Curtiss products, starting with the Hawk 75 over France 1940. So I would hazzard a guess that they wouldn't try to turn with them and just boom and zoom them.

11-30-2004, 08:06 AM
the desert staffels mostly still used bnz against the p40s but marseille was rare in the fact that he did also use combat flaps and slow down to turn to some extent unlike many others, it just so happened that he was an awesome shot and the p40s would often have to fly in defensive circles against the faster and more powerful 109fs which to a good marksman like marseille allowed him to get many of them in one sortie and in fact often more than 1 in 1 sweeping pass - again see Mike Spicks book as suggested above, its a very good read.
so basicaly as we all know the p40 is a whole bunch overmodelled in FB but i guess it keeps it competative if not a little frustrating for us historical buffs.

11-30-2004, 10:07 AM
109Fs were the best turning of the 109-series.. just because the G-2 seems to turn even better than F-2/F-4 in game, does not mean it's true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F-4 was one of the turners of the war, infact it was quite closely matched to Spit V / Yak 1, having sustained turn of about 18-19 sec.. P-40 has pretty much same.. so if engaged in close dogfight, usually the better pilot turned out as the winner.

Don't know about you guys, but only 109s wich i can successfully turnfight P-40s in game are the F-2/F-4, and G-2.. the rest, you can only do it with energy advantage for max 1-2 full turns..

11-30-2004, 02:58 PM
One of the problems we have with the P-40 is that in the American context, its maneuverability is only mentioned in comparison to the Japanese fighters it faced in the Pacific and CBI. Simultaneously, most of the P-40s flown in North Africa and the Med were flown by Commonwealth air forces, who were frankly, largely treated as cannon fodder used to distract the Jagdewaffe from the bombers and ground attack units of the Desert Air Force.

My readings of RAF memoirs (including those of Americans who served in the RAF) indicates to me that the RAF and the Commonwealth air forces tended to think that a pilot was a pilot, and you could throw him into any fighter plane, and he should be able to fight just as well in the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk as in the Spitfire (which tends to be the British standard of reference for WWII fighters).

Most of the squadrons in the Western Desert got P-40 variants when they had been hoping for Spitfire Mk Vs, and were expected to make an immediate transition from Hurricanes to the P-40 in combat. In any case, their tactics were primarily defensive whenever enemy fighters appeared. British tactical doctrine lagged the cutting edge well into the North African campaign, most squadrons flying vics or line astern formations well into 1943, and the experten of JG 27 and 53(? not sure about this) cut them up accordingly.

Arrival of USAAF units flying the slightly more capable P-40F/L must have come as a shock to the German fighter pilots who ran into them. These pilots were much more familiar with their mounts' strengths and weaknesses vis a vis the 109F/G, and their tactics quickly shed any influence from their 'more experienced' RAF allies. The P-40 was at least the equal of the 109F in the horizontal, superior in the dive (until the P-47 arrived, nothing dived like a P-40), and comparable in firepower.



11-30-2004, 03:24 PM
The problem I always had is that it seems like the 109F turns much better when the enemy is flying it, and the P40 does too...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

11-30-2004, 03:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WIFC_subg:
the desert staffels mostly still used bnz against the p40s... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Its interesting that the tactics that gave the P-40s success against the Japanese fighters were used against them by the Germans.

I don't really understand the bad reputation the P-40 seems to have. True, it's an early war design that wasn't significantly updated throughout the war. Also, it was supposedly used poorly tactically at first against the Japanese, but that problem was surely overcome.
From what I can tell, it does little wrong yet isn't exceptional at anything, save for its dive capabilities compared to it's peers.
There aren't any major problems with the design, yet it's usually put down just above the P-39 in American minds. I just can't figure it out.

11-30-2004, 04:02 PM
I guess there were good reasons that it stayed in production until the end of the war even though it would be referred to as a "2nd generation" fighter.