This
model is part of a Group Build on iModeler.com called,
"The Old Kit Challenge - Where It All Began." The concept
of the build is to revive one of the countless older models out there which are passed over for newer kits - and which may never be built.
These older kits were the catalyst for the hobby as we know it today, and this build honors those shared beginnings. The
group rules are simple: 1. Kits first molded prior to 1981 -
Re-issues are okay 2. Any subject matter and scale 3.
After-market details to be avoided 4. After-market decals
acceptable, since older kits may have unusable decals. (Modern
pre-cut paint masks are the only other exception) The idea is to try and use what comes in the kit...as much as
possible.
THE
KIT
MONOGRAM HURRICANE MKII
1:48 Scale
For this build I'm using a vintage Monogram Hurricane, a kit I snagged on the cheap from eBay. It's a relic of a bygone era, originating in the 1940's as a solid model, which inspired Monogram to do it as a plastic model kit. First released in 1964 (#PA90), it has been re-issued many times since. The kit in the box is a Mark II version, and the captivating feature of
this kit is its sheer ambition: five distinct MkII versions are promised
within a single box! This mirrors the adaptable wing of the real Mk II Hurricane - a wing engineered to accept a variety of armaments and
roles. There is something appealing about that kind of
versatility.
But ambition
comes at a cost: trying to be everything at once means there are
compromises, and the result is that none of the options are rendered
with complete fidelity. But hesitation disappears when you see the four 20mm cannon on the box
art. Long, menacing, and unavoidable, any thought of
other configurations goes out the window. This is no longer a flexible platform; it
becomes purposeful and predatory in its intent. This one is the first release boxing, and it is quite nice,
with stout plastic and crisp, clean moldings in grey and black.
Likewise, it was birthed in an age when "realistic working
features" appealed to young boys - its intended market. So this one sports functional landing gear!
But I got it cheap for a reason: Inside
the box, a chaotic "mash-up" of parts rattles around loosely. Extra cannons, fuel tanks, rockets and more are scattered among
the neccessary stock parts -
BUT - the clear canopy is missing. There are plenty of spares for the, "parts dungeon," but with NO
canopy, and in its
jumbled state, there's no collector value. It
was a natural for this build.
The
Cockpit Ahh, the cockpit. Everyone loves the cockpit, right? It is
where the story begins, and like most kits, this one starts there…
and reveals something rather, well... underwhelming. The
cockpit is present — but only in a technical sense. It's
not so much a working space as a suggestion of one. There is no seat; instead, you get a rear armor plate with headrest. The instrument panel is nothing
more than a flat surface, with a decal that tries (without much
conviction), to imitate detail. The cockpit
“floor” is simply the top of the wing. There is no sidewall detail, no control yoke, BUT, to appease the action-minded lad of the
1960's, a puppet-like pilot figure is glued to the back plate. And that is
the entirety of the scene. But it's not as bad as it sounds.
Once sealed beneath the canopy, the cockpit fades to shadow, barely visible to
the eye. And truthfully, I don't get excited about hyper-detailing cockpits
in these smaller scales. So I won't fight what is missing; I
will add a gunsight, a hint of busyness — and move on. The
Canopy The original canopy in this kit was a closed greenhouse that enclosed all that non-existent cockpit detail. But it was missing, and
the model would look goofy without it. I needed a replacement. Squadron offers a vac-u-formed version, but that violates
the spirit of the group build...and it might invite the
wrath of the Modeling
Gods. I
steeled myself against that possibility, for
the sake of the project. Then, the Modeling
Gods, themselves,
offered solution rather than spite. After confessing my plight on the
group build page, a fellow builder pulled an original canopy from the
depths of his, "spares dungeon" and sent it by post. The
gods are appeased—and my Monogram build will be pure
in the end.
Thank you very much, Mr. Russell
J. You are a prince among men. The
Landing Gear The
landing gear follow the cockpit’s lead. They are present… but almost defiant in their simplicity. The wheels are the first nit-pick; they are the early 4-spoke
pattern. They're serviceable, but wrong for the aircraft being represented.
The later 5-spoke type is proper, one of those small details that
quietly nags once noticed. Then,
there are the wheel wells, themselves… well, the absence of them. They are just empty, featureless voids. This might go unnoticed, but
the aircraft stands tall on its gear, exposing just enough of those voids to invite curious glances… In its defense, we must remember that models like this were not intended as static display
pieces. These landing gear were built to retract with a satisfying
"snap", so small hands could zoom the aircraft around the room before guiding it back for a triumphant landing.
Working features like retractable gear weren’t just gimmicks; they
were a bit of magic at the heart of the experience. So
I’ll meet it halfway. I’ll dress up the gear legs, add a proper
mud and dirt shield within the bays, ignore the incorrect wheels and
include the retraction feature — for the spirit of the group build,
and for the simple joy of it.
Rivets
and raised detail Today, we take for granted the intricate and engraved details of modern kits. But in 1964, the tooling technology for that didn't yet
exist. Instead, mold-making was a manual process and manufacturers focused on adding dramatic surface details —
bold, raised panel lines and rivets everywhere. And this one delivers abundantly - they're both well done, but unmistakably of the era. You can see that clearly in the pictures above. The rivets, in particular, are plentiful. That’s not entirely
wrong, by the way...the real Hurricane Mk II had many rivets holding it together. But Monogram did what was normal back then:
ALL riveted surfaces are the raised, mushroom-head type. Which is incorrect. On the real aircraft, the forward third of the wing had smooth, flush-rivets, to reduce drag. But that sleek wing section is missing here… it
is pimpled with a zillion little bumps. So the molded rivets
will be removed in that area and relevant panel lines scribed in. On the subject of panel lines, they're nicely defined on the
model, but boldly raised. They will share the same fate as the errant
rivets. That means shave them down, and re-scribe them properly.
Fortunately, Hurricane II's only had paneled surfaces on the wing and
engine area of the fuselage. The rest is fabric-covered plywood* and
tubular structure, so there aren't a lot panel lines to rework. Must I do all this? No. But some things you can’t leave
alone. Done judiciously, this effort transforms the model — it "pops!" and looks a little less like a toy. Raised lines and rivets can't achieve that look. Besides, it’s
the perfect excuse to pick up a new panel line shaver. I had one once
- now mysteriously vanished. But it is one of those tools you reach
for again and again, especially if you build older kits. I’m
looking forward to having one back in hand.
* FUN FACT: Modelers sometimes weather their Hurricane's with scuffed bare metal on the cockpit sides, to suggest wear resulting from pilots entering and exiting. But that area is fabric-covered plywood... if paint wears off there, it wont reveal a metal undersurface. Decals So now I had the kit, a canopy, and a plan for the build,
but something was still off. The decals. They looked in good shape, but their usefullness was in question. The aircraft codes were endered in stark white, as was the empennage band. Both are not right. And overall, the decals just weren't hitting the right notes for me.
This build needed something else... and non-original decals are okay. So, I looked around for something different.
Once more the gods smiled on this build with a
bit of treasure: original Monogram decals from the Monogram, "Adversary
Series," double-kit boxing #6082.
These markings depict both a Hurricane MkII and Bf 109E on one sheet. And as luck
would have it, the decals are for a famous Hurricane: Fl. Lt. Karel Kuttlewascher’s legendary Mk IIC,
“Night Reaper.” Even better, it was
not the all-black version we usually see....this one wears Day
Scheme camouflage. This particular scheme has it doubters,
as pictures of it are in short supply. But it is different, and it
hascachet. It was also prominently featured on the
cover of the old Profile Pubications, Vol. 24... of which I have a
copy.
Besides, if that scheme was good enough for Monogram, it was
good enough for me. So, for five dollars, and a few bucks in mailing — the decals were mine....
Next came some research. Fortunately, Kuttlewascher and his Hurricane, “Night Reaper” are about as celebrated as any, and information is plentiful. Kuttlewascher was a Czech ace who flew for the RAF, and he made a name by attacking Luftwaffe bombers at night over their own bases! Now that is cool! Most
sources fixate on 'Night Reaper's' all-black night fighter scheme,
but later, as the need changed, it seems the paint job did, too. The
plane retained its black underside, but it's "dark knight" image was dropped and it was returned to Day
Scheme colors. And that’s the version I’m after.
In
the end, a decent Hurricane Mk. IIC can be made by smoothing the rivets where necessary, adding some prominent panel lines, then working with
what is there. Finally, add a paint job and decals with a little pizazz - and we are wheels up and good to
go! The work on the rivets and panel lines will start the actual build, since the cockpit only needs basic effort. That is coming next, so stay tuned for Part 2!
Onlookers surround a German He-111 H-2 bomber that was shot down by Spitfire "ACE" F/L Archie McKellar over the Lammermuir Hills, Humbie, Scotland. October 28, 1939. The bomber was on a reconnaissance mission when it was shot down. 2 of its crew were killed, the pilot was wounded, and the navigator surrendered to a local policeman. This bomber was known as, "The Humbie Heinkel," and it was the first official German aircraft brought down over British soil during WW2.
Interesting markings on this aircraft - note the second cross outboard, on the top of the wings. The aircraft bore the code 1H+JA, and belonged to theStab./KG 26unit (Staff Flight of Kampfgeschwader 26) and was identified byWerk Number 5/449
TheHienkel Took off from Lubeck-Blankensee on a long-range, armed reconnaissance mission to the Firth of Clyde and the Firth of Forth, a round trip of some 1,000 miles. At 15,000ft over the Firth of Forth, the aircraft was hit by accurate anti-aircraft fire. Next, Spitfires of 602 and 603 squadrons located the Heinkel at 6,000ft. Repeated attacks riddled the doomed bomber, wounding the pilot, knocking out both engines, shattering the cockpit instruments and killing the flight engineer and radio operator.
The pilot, skilfully glided his airplane in, and performed a perfect forced landing in difficult terrain in the Lammermuir Hills, near Edinburgh. This was the first German aircraft to be brought down over mainland Britain in WW2 and it attracted huge media attention at the time. It also gave RAF Intelligence a largely intact machine to evaluate, although the RAF technicians never discovered the German radio navigational bombing aid - code named, "Knickebein". It was not until late 1940 that the mystery of this navigation system was revealed.
Crew: Pilot – Uffz. Kurt Lehmkuhl (captured, wounded)
The Bf-109 was one of the most influential German aircraft of the 1930s. Although not a fighter, it introduced advanced aerodynamic and structural concepts that later appeared in the famous Messerschmitt Bf 109.
It served as a high-performance touring, liaison, and staff transport aircraft, widely used by the Luftwaffe during WWII.
📜 Origin and Development
The Bf 108 was designed in 1934 by the engineering team of Willy Messerschmitt at Bayerische Flugzeugwerke.
The aircraft was originally created for the Challenge International de Tourisme, an international aviation competition designed to test speed, reliability, and long-distance touring performance.
Messerschmitt wanted to build a modern, fast, all-metal aircraft that would outperform traditional light aircraft of the time.
Although it did not win the competition, the design impressed many observers and quickly attracted military interest.
The aircraft received the nickname “Taifun” (Typhoon) because of its high speed and excellent aerodynamic efficiency.
✈️ Purpose of the Aircraft
The Bf 108 was designed for several roles:
1️⃣ High-speed touring aircraft
Originally intended for long-distance sport aviation and international competitions.
2️⃣ Liaison aircraft
During WWII it became a staff transport aircraft for high-ranking officers.
3️⃣ Communication platform
Used to carry messages, dispatches, and personnel between airfields.
4️⃣ Pilot transport
Often used to move fighter aces, commanders, and staff officers quickly across the front.
Some famous Luftwaffe officers—including Adolf Galland—used the Bf 108 as a personal transport aircraft.
⚙️ Production History
First flight: 1934
Entered service: 1935
Production period: 1935–1944
Manufacturer:
Bayerische Flugzeugwerke
Later Messerschmitt AG
Total production
Approximately 885 aircraft were built.
Production later moved to occupied France and continued under the name Nord 1000 Pingouin after the war.
🛠️ Airframe Design
The Bf 108 was extremely advanced for the mid-1930s.
Key structural features
All-metal monocoque fuselage
Lightweight stressed-skin construction, similar to later fighters.
Low-wing cantilever design
No external bracing, reducing drag.
Retractable landing gear
Very rare for a light aircraft at the time.
Automatic leading-edge slats
Improved low-speed handling and stall resistance.
These features would later appear on the Bf 109 fighter.
🔧 Engine
The Bf 108 used the famous inverted German V-12 engine:
Argus As 10
Type: Air-cooled inverted V-8
Power: ~240 hp
Displacement: 9.5 L
Advantages of this engine:
Excellent reliability
Low fuel consumption
Good forward visibility due to inverted layout
Easy maintenance
The engine drove a two-blade variable pitch propeller.
📊 Technical Specifications
Crew: 1
Passengers: 3
Length:
8.3 m
Wingspan:
10.6 m
Empty weight:
~880 kg
Maximum takeoff weight:
~1,400 kg
Maximum speed:
≈ 305 km/h
Cruising speed:
≈ 260 km/h
Range:
≈ 1,000 km
Service ceiling:
≈ 6,000 m
For a 1930s touring aircraft, this was exceptionally fast.
⭐ Advantages of the Bf 108
Aerodynamic efficiency
The aircraft had very low drag, making it faster than many contemporary aircraft.
Modern construction
All-metal stressed skin made it stronger and lighter.
Advanced wing design
Automatic slats improved stall characteristics and made landings safer.
Excellent range
Ideal for long-distance liaison missions.
Handling qualities
Pilots reported very stable flight behavior.
⚠️ Disadvantages
Complex landing gear
The retractable gear system was mechanically complicated.
Narrow landing gear track
This could make ground handling tricky on rough fields.
Limited payload
Only useful as a light transport or liaison aircraft.
⚔️ Role in World War II
During WWII the Bf 108 served mainly as:
Command transport aircraft
Courier aircraft
Pilot shuttle
Staff transport
It often operated between Luftwaffe headquarters and forward airfields.
It was not a combat aircraft and carried no armament.
🧬 Influence on the Bf 109
Many design features of the Messerschmitt Bf 109 were first tested on the Bf 108:
Automatic leading-edge slats
All-metal monocoque structure
Aerodynamic fuselage design
Low-drag canopy integration
In many ways, the Bf 108 was the technological ancestor of the Bf 109.
📚 Historical Legacy
Even though it was not a combat aircraft, the Bf 108 played an important role in aviation history.
It demonstrated that light aircraft could be fast, modern, and aerodynamically efficient, influencing aircraft design worldwide.
Some examples still fly today as restored vintage aircraft.
From the FB group Luftwaffe Air Force WW2
✅ Short conclusion for your aviation page
The Bf 108 Taifun was not a fighter—but it was one of the most technologically important aircraft of the 1930s.
Its innovations directly paved the way for one of the greatest fighters of WWII: the Bf 109.
WARNING This article discusses and display images of World War II that may be objectionable to some readers.
JU-87
B-2
Junkers 87 B-2
The Junkers Ju 87 B-2, the first major variant produced of the iconic German "Stuka" dive bomber, was a key aircraft of the German airforce (Luftwaffe) in early WWII.
The Ju-87 B-2, or “Stuka” (from "Sturzkampfflugzeug”, meaning dive bomber) featured a 1,200 hp Jumo 211 Da engine, improved pressurized radiator with hydraulic controls, and a 1,000 kg bomb capacity. The B-2 also had improved cowling flaps, and specialized adaptations for tropical, winter and extreme climate operations. Providing precision, close-air support to the Wehrmacht, the Stuka was known for its fixed, spatted landing gear, inverted gull wings, and "Jericho Trumpet" sirens. Two of the sirens were normally mounted on each wheel spat, with a clutch that engaged the siren when the Stuka was in a dive. However, The Ju-87 had no real defense against modern fighters and was vulnerable without escorting air support. It served on both the Western and Eastern Fronts, and in a tropicalized version, in North Africa
The Ju-87 propeller-driven siren (dubbed the “Jericho trumpet”). These sirens emitted a terrible shrieking sound, as a psychological "terror" edge against opponents.
Key Aspects of the Ju 87 B-2
Performance Maximum level speed was approximately 390 km/h (242 mph), with a rated dive speed of 560 km/h (350 mph). It had a 600 km (372 miles) range on internal fuel, while carrying a bomb load. Armament Two 7.92 mm MG 17 forward firing machine guns in the wings, one rear-facing 7.92 mm MG 15 for defense, and ability to carry up to 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of bombs Design Improvements The B-2 replaced the B-1, featuring refined, broader propeller blades, and a special swing-arm for releasing bombs outside the propeller arc during dives. Subvariants These included the Ju 87 B-2/U2 (improved radio), Ju 87 B-2/U3 (extra armor for ground support missions), and Ju 87 B-2/U (ski landing gear for winter). Why the Stuka? Operational Role: Precise, pin-point dive bombing of tactical and strategic targets in support of ground forces under the coordinated direction of forward spotters. Before World War II, the doctrine of the dive bomber emerged as a specialized precision-strike strategy aimed at destroying high-value, small-area targets like warships, bridges, and factories. Most of the major war powers of the world experimented with dive-bombing and its tactics, with the Japanese and U.S. Navy in the 1920's, and later the German Luftwaffe, taking it seriously. It involved diving near-vertically to release bombs at low altitude and essentially right on top of the target. This maximized accuracy and minimized vulnerability to anti-aircraft fire. The Junkers Ju-87 Stuka dive bomber was, in fact, a highly accurate, specialized aircraft, able to place bombs within a 40 meter radius of the target..., far superior to horizontal bombers of the early World War II era. Pre-WWII Dive Bomber Doctrine Precision Over Payload Unlike heavy level bombers designed to carpet a large area with bombs, dive bombers acted as bombing "snipers," delivering a single, accurately placed bomb. Todays laser guided and smart missiles are a development of that same concept. Of course, in the interwar years and throughout WW2 this method required a human pilot to do the job.... Naval Origins The US Marine Corps and Navy originally pioneered this tactic in the 1920s to tackle the lightly armored and vulnerable decks of ships. Technique The dive bomber approaches at high altitude, often led to the target by other aircraft. Then it dives steeply straight down on top of the target, releases bombs at low altitude, and performs a high-G pullout. This is very effective and efficient, and is the difference between surgical precision and mass destruction. Advantages The steep dive angle made it difficult for shipboard gunners to track the aircraft, as it's nose-on profile is quite small. It was considered the most effective method for attacking ships. Development and Adoption Despite early skepticism of the concept and the frail aircraft in WWI, the technology steadily improved and specialized, rugged aircraft were built to withstand the high-G forces of pulling out of a vertical dive. In the U.S., the Douglas SBD Dauntless became the choice by the start of WWII, while Japan selected the Aichi D3A, both naval aircraft intended for use from carriers.
In Germany, it was General Ernst Udet, however, who came to champion the concept of dive bombing after observing U.S. Navy dive bombers in the early 1930s. Udet was the head of the Reichluftministerium (RLM, Air Ministry) and was himself a successful WWI pilot; he was instrumental in forming the German Luftwaffe. However, Udet saw the dive bomber in a much wider view, and envisioned it in support of the German army (Wehrmacht) as a key part of its developing blitzkrieg doctrine.
At the opening of the proving competition for the Luftwaffe's new dive bomber, 4 entries were selected. Two were eliminated early on, leaving only the Heinkel 118 and the Ju-87 in the running. Udet, being very keen on the concept, took the Heinkel into the air, himself, to test it. However, during the trials, the propeller drive and propeller both came apart and actually separated from the aircraft he was piloting! Udet parachuted safely to the ground while the Heinkel aircraft crashed and disintegrated. Udet thereafter declared the Junkers entry, the Ju-87, winner by default.
Accuracy and Performance Details
Precision Stukas functioned as pinpoint, “long range, aerial artillery,” allowing pilots to drop bombs at low altitude, usually 2,300 feet, after a steep dive (up to 80 degrees), maximizing hit probability on tanks, rail yards, road intersections, buildings, marshaling areas, bunkers, artillery and troop positions, airfields, ships and other strategic and tactical targets. This offered unmatched precision over other dive bombers and typical level bombers. It was, in reality, a very good idea, but with a serious flaw: it only works if the dive bomber can operate freely in the absence of defending enemy fighters and anti-aircraft. Targeting It was capable of attacking most any specific point target, and the Stuka often operated directly from behind the infantry and fast moving Panzer battalions to provide immediate support as needed.
Effectiveness
Essentially a "sniper" in the realm of aerial bombing, the Stuka often achieved success rates of 25% or better in directly hitting targets. The Stuka's ability to dive at over 350 mph and release bombs at very low altitudes made it a devastating, terror-inducing weapon in the early years of the war. A total of 6,000 to 6,500 Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" dive-bombers of all types were produced, between 1936 and August 1944. Manufacturing numbers for the B-2 type are approximate, ranging between 225 and 697 dive bombers produced. It is likely that the 697 figure represents the entire B series, while other sources indicate 225 B-2 version Stukas were built. Production Context The Ju 87B series was the first mass-produced variant, succeeding the A-series, and was used extensively from 1937–1942. The Ju 87B-2 was largely used in the post-1940 period of World War II, before being replaced by newer variants like the D-series. Limitations While extremely useful and highly accurate in the early war, the Stuka's effectiveness dropped significantly when faced with enemy fighters and modern anti-aircraft defenses. The Stukas rear facing machine gun was a weak defense, and the pilot was naturally distracted by the need for self-survival and evasion while under attack, himself. The straight line dive may have made the dive bomber hard to hit by shipboard A/A, but it was relatively slow and easy to track by A/A on the ground. And of course, opposing fighters could approach and attack the Stuka from any direction. This one-two punch of A/A and fighter defense were instrumental in bringing them down. That's a big reason why there are very few intact Stuka's today...
Stuka Successes However, the Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" was not without its successes and remained a pivotal asset to the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht in early World War II (1939–1941). As an integral part of the fast moving, mobile "blitzkrieg" tactics of the Wehrmacht, it drove German forces to great success in the opening stages of WW2. It's precision ground support, tactical bombing effects, and terror element made it a valuable element of the German assault forces. It proved devastating against many different targets in theaters with weak air opposition. Blitzkrieg Campaigns (1939-1940) Stukas played a critical role in the rapid conquests of Poland, Norway, and France, acting as "flying artillery" to destroy communications, supply lines, troop formations and armored units. The ability to follow directly behind the mechanized infantry assault and Panzer units ment it could be called to immediately leapfrog ahead and dismantle enemy assets as they were encountered. This made it a crucial element of the blitzkrieg. In the absence of effective air defenses, The Stukas shattered all opposition. This not only delighted it proponents, but earned it the "wonder weapon" reputation it sometimes still carries to this day. Naval Warfare As already explained, the dive bombing concept was originated to attack ships, and the JU-87 was highly successful in anti-shipping roles. Numerous ships were attacked and put out of action in the Norwegian campaign and the English Channel. Notably, Stukas crippled the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious in the Mediterranean in January 1941. The Battle of Britain - The Ju-87's Achilles Heel During the evacuation of British Expeditionary Forces from Dunkirk in May, 1940, the Stuka met British Spitfires and Hurricanes for the first time...and endured heavy losses. It was tasked with crushing the evacuation, but instead, it's supremacy was finally challenged. German propoganda hid this fact behind a smokescreen, of course. But over England in the summer of 1940, during the Battle of Britain, the cat was let out of the bag. The Junkers Ju-87B-2 "Stuka" was primarily used during the BoB as a precision dive bomber targeting Royal Air Force (RAF) coastal radar stations, shipping, and airfields. But their vulnerability to the RAF's determined fighter defenses was finally revealed, and they were withdrawn from duty after suffering heavy losses. Ju-87B-2 in the Battle of Britain Targeting Strategy Stukas focused on attacking "Chain Home" radar stations, which were crucial to the British defense system. They also targeted coastal shipping and RAF airfields, such as Tangmere. Operational Method Pilots engaged in the typical Stuka attack method: near-vertical dives, utilizing "Jericho Trumpet" sirens on their landing gear to create psychological terror. Armament and Payload The Ju-87B-2 typically carried one 250 kg (or 500 kg) bomb under the fuselage and four 50 kg bombs under the wings for precision bombing.
Vulnerability Exposed As useful as the Stuka was as precision, “aerial artillery,” the Stuka's slow speed, inability to evade modern fighters, and weak defensive armament made it easy prey for Spitfires and Hurricanes. The achilles heel of the Stuka was exposed: without strong and heavy protection, it was a sitting duck. Tactical Shift Following their daylight failures, they were sometimes used for night-time attacks over London and for sporadic attacks on convoys. There were some attempts to repurpose the Stuka for "hit-and-run" tactics near dusk, as well. But the Stuka was not equipped for night operations, and night raids were not really successful. As long as the Stuka could be protected from opposing fighter attack, it was devastating. Their initial successes in Poland, France and the Low Countries make that clear. But those victories were wholly due to the lack of organized fighter resistance by their opponents. But the Germans simply could not supply enough fighters to adequately protect both protect the Stukas over Britain AND beat back the numerous RAF Spitfires and Hurricanes from their own bombers.
A good idea in theory, and actually very effective in practice, the dive bomber was very good at its specific purpose. But the Ju-87's inability to operate without complete fighter protection was a harsh lesson, and this led to it's limited effectiveness in the Battle of Britain. The last significant, large-scale Stuka raid over Britain occurred on August 18,1940. Known as "The Hardest Day," over 20% of the force was lost to RAF fighters, and the Luftwaffe promptly withdrew them from operations over the British Isles.A few sporadic attempts were made thereafter, but they were all pulled back to the Pas de Calais by the end of August to await the proposed (and non-existent) invasion of Britian.
Eastern Front (1941-1944): Operation Barbarossa and Beyond Its safe to say that the Stuka made its name in history on the Eastern Front. Used as close, high-precision air support for armored and troop columns through 90-degree dive-bombing, its activities were normally directed by forward spotters/liaisons. And in the early phase of the Russian invasion, “Operation Barbarossa,” which began on June 22, 1941, the Soviets did not have a really robust air defense system. They had a great many aircraft, yes, but they couldn't put them to good use in sufficient numbers. This meant the Stukas could operate with some impunity, and minimal air cover.
Close Air Support & Ground Liaison Stukas acted as "flying artillery" for the Wehrmacht, with Luftwaffe liaison officers on the ground directing attacks on specific targets like, troop concentrations, artillery positions, logistical targets like railroad lines, roads, bridges, etc. They leap-frgooed forward over the army from airfields close in the rear, conducting rapid, coordinated strikes on key targets in advance of the Wehrmacht. Vertical Dive-Bombing Pilots, such as Hans-Ulrich Rudel, engaged in 80 to 90-degree dives from high altitudes to achieve, on average, less than 30 yards of deviation, allowing for extremely high accuracy in targeting supply lines, bunker systems, and armor. Anti-Shipping Operations in Russia The Junkers Ju 87 Stuka played a significant and highly effective role in anti-shipping operations on the Eastern Front, particularly during the early stages of the German invasion of Russia (Operation Barbarossa) and in the Black Sea/Baltic regions. Despite being increasingly vulnerable to fighter opposition, the Stuka’s precision dive-bombing capabilities were devastating against Soviet naval vessels and coastal shipping. Targeting the Soviet Fleet Stukas were crucial in attacking Soviet warships, including battleships, cruisers, and destroyers that supported the defense of cities like Leningrad. The Marat Sinking One of the most famous actions occurred in September 1941, when Stukas from Stukageschwader 2 ("Immelmann" Wing), flown by pilots including Hans-Ulrich Rudel, attacked and dispatched the Soviet battleship Marat at Kronstadt. Black Sea/Baltic Activity Stukas were also active in sinking Soviet ships attempting to evacuate troops or transport supplies, such as during the evacuation of Tallinn. Precision Attacks Unlike high-altitude bombers, the Stuka's vertical dive allowed for high-accuracy hits on smaller, maneuverable ships. Operational Period Although superseded by ground-attack versions of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 (F-series), the Stuka continued in its anti-shipping role on the Eastern Front until 1944. While the Stuka’s reputation is normally tied to its "dive-bomber" terror tactics, its success against Soviet naval power was a critical, usually often overlooked, component of its service on the Eastern Front. Attacks On Airfields Since fighter opposition to the Stuka is its greatest weakness, a word about Soviet aerial response is appropriate... or perhaps we should say, the lack of such response. Contrary to what some today might imagine, the Russians were not oblivious to airpower in warfare. They were flying in combat during the First World War, so they were well aware of its use and effectiveness. They also had great resources for manufacturing and a lot of aircraft at the beginning of the German invasion, “Operation Barbarossa.” And if numbers alone could make a difference, the Russian airforce, the VVS, would have stopped the Germans before they got started. Unfortunately, the aerial assets of the VVS were largely obsolete in 1941. They had been asleep on the job for some years, and the largest number of fighters they had included many thousands of older, badly outclassed Polikarpov I-16 and I-153 biplane fighters. To their credit, the VVS had begun modernizing the Soviet airfleet, with emerging types like the Yak-1, MiG-3, and LaGG-3. But they were the fewest in number, and they all struggled against the many German Bf 109E and F fighters, the Luftwaffe's well-honed tactics, and its experienced pilots. Russian Fighter Aircraft (June 1941)
- Polikarpov I-16 "Ishak" (Donkey): The aging mainstay, monoplane fighter of the VVS (approx. 4,200+ in service).The I-16 was actually the first low-wing, monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear in the world. Entered service in the mid-1930's and while not terrible in performance, the I-16 was significantly inferior to the Messerschmitt Bf 109.
- Polikarpov I-153 "Chaika" & I-15: Highly maneuverable, but slow and obsolete biplane fighters (approx. 4,400+ combined). Many were destroyed in the opening hours of the invasion, sitting in neat rows on their runways. By 1943, these were no longer in front line service
- Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3: High-altitude interceptor; 981 in service at the beginning of Barbarossa. The MiG-3 was difficult to fly in peacetime and much more so in combat. Combat over the Eastern Front was mostly at lower altitudes, and the Mig-3 was inferior to the German Messerschmitt Bf 109. The losses suffered in combat were very high - the highest among all the VVS fighters.
- Yakovlev Yak-1: A modern fighter similar to the Bf 109E. The Yak-1 was maneuverable, fast and competitive. The composite-wooden structure made it easy to maintain and the engine was reliable. Unfortunately for the VVS, it was only available only in limited numbers at the start of hostilites.
- Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3: A new, wooden-constructed fighter. Designed to be competitive, it was one of the most modern aircraft available to the VVS at the start of Operation Barbarossa. However, compared to its opponents, the LaGG-3 was underpowered and overweight. It was also unpopular with pilots because it had handling issues and was difficult to fly.
As we can see from the descriptions above, the Soviets had a large number of aircraft – but they were either outdated, inferior in performance, or not used to great effect against the Luftwaffe. Plus, both their airfields and the aircraft themselves were caught on the ground in significant numbers and destroyed in the opening days of the campagin. This was due to poor training, poor communications across the front, lack of coordinated effort among air and ground forces, and the overall superior tactics of the Luftwaffe. The Germans basically overwhelmed the existing air assets in the early stages of the invasion, and the Stuka was instrumental in dismantling the Soviet air force on the ground. High-Intensity Sorties During major offensives, Stukas were capable of operating from forward, and often primitive, airstrips. This was part of its design philosophy, in order to maximize efficiency and provide rapid, tactical air support to the ground forces of the Wehrmacht. The Germans had developed and honed precise tactics for the fast-moving, mechanized units in their armies – the infamous “blitzkrieg”assault. And a key element of these tactics was constant and well co-ordinated communicaton between the air force and ground units. Because of this rapid and ever advancing pace, Stuka crews were always in the air above the army, some flying up to 10 sorties per day in the first part of Operation Barbarossa. Psychological Warfare & Evolution While the "Jericho Trumpet" sirens of the Stuka initially caused terror in the enemy ranks, the opposition soon became accustomed to them. So the psychological “noise effect” was diminished over time. By the middle of the war they were usually removed to reduce drag, as the Stuka faced ever more modern and numerous enemy fighters. Evolution to Tank-Busting (Ju 87G) All parties must end, and so it was for the Stuka. The same two changes that occurred over Britian eventually arose in Russia, putting an end to the Stuka's stunning early successes...
- Soviet aircraft design, manufacturing and tactics improved quickly - Lend Lease deliveries of Western fighters increased. In this way, Russian air superiority shifted into a viable force to be reckoned with. This made the slower Ju-87 vulnerable to aerial attack once more. By 1943, the Ju 87 was forced to shift into a more deliberate ground-attack role against Russian material and vehicle assets and its dive bombing abilities were abandoned more and more. This shift was most notable with the Ju-87 G-2 variant, which was fitted with twin 37mm cannons to specifically destroy Soviet T-34 tanks.
JU-87 G-2 "Tank Buster"
By 1943–1944, Soviet air superiority had grown substantially, and the B-2 variant was largely replaced by the faster and more more heavily armored "Dora" (D-series) and "Gustav" (G-series) models. But the Stuka always needed air cover, and was an easy target, especially for more advanced Soviet fighters like the later Yak and Lavochkin series. Regardless, Stukas remained critical to German, tactical, close-support roles, although their effectiveness decreased as Soviet air superiority expanded.
Highest Scoring Stuka Pilot
Despite the vulnerabilities of the Stuka, we mustn't leap to the idea that it was a failure. It was, in fact, highly successful in its primary role as a dive bomber, as well as it's later attack capacities. And there was one Stuka pillot who stood heads above the rest... Oberst (Colonel) Hans-Ulrich Rudel. Rudel became the most highly decorated German serviceman of the war, and was the only recipient of the highest honor the Reich could bestow, The Knight's
Cross with Golden Oak Leaves, Swords, and Diamonds. Obst. Rudel is credited with knocking out 519 tanks, one battleship, one cruiser, 70 landing craft and 150 artillery emplacements, and at least 800 vehicles...that we know of. Records indicate that he flew 2,530 ground-attack missions exclusively on the Eastern Front, almost all of them in the Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka."
However, he was an excellent pilot and is also credited with eleven aerial victories flying several variants of the Focke-Wulf 190 later in the war. An unrepentant Nazi, he was shot down over 30 times, and officially wounded five times..., but he persisted in his efforts throughout the Russian campaigns. On 8 February 1945, Rudel was badly wounded in the right foot, and his leg was amputated below the knee. Undeterred, he returned to flying on the 25th of March of that year, this time with a prosthetic leg. He flew more missions, now being lifted into his Stuka by ground crews - and he claimed 26 more tanks destroyed by the end of the war.
On 8 May, 1945, Rudel led a flight of several Stukas and Fw-190's westward from an airfield near Prague, landing in US controlled territory. There he turned himself in, and the Americans refused to hand him over to the Russians. He survived the war, and later emigrated to Argentina where he continued to promote the Nazi cause. While I admit to a grudging respect - even admiration - of Rudel's tenacious bravery and determination, I cannot overlook the dark-hearted cause for which he fought... and so denounce the man, himself. That's history, I suppose.
Despite its early successes in WW2, the Mediterranean and Russia, the Stuka could never overcome the fact that it was slow, unmaneuverable, and highly vulnerable to modern fighter and anti-aircraft attack. It required, but often lacked, superior air cover, and yet - it remained in production until 1944 due to its unmatched precision bombing and attack capabilities.
As
a scale modeler of WWII aircraft, I'm a fan of the Curtiss P-40
series of American fighters, with the P-40E my favorite. I like
others, of course - the P-47, or F6F Hellcat, for example. And in the
past, I followed the herd and perceived the P-40 as basically out of
the running. I saw the name, "P-40" and automatically
dismissed it, smugly parroting all the claims I heard about its
uselessness. But today, I no longer march with all the
naysayers. Instead, I looked for reasons why it was as successful as
it was. And surprise! - it was
sucessful when it was most needed.
Yeah, I came around, at last - I'm a P-40 fan.
✪
The Curtiss P-40
When
World War II came to the United States in 1941, the Curtiss P-40E,
"Warhawk" was
the best fighter available in large numbers. That is important,
and we'll explain why as we go along. The
P-40, itself, is probably known to all reading this, but here's a
quick overview in case youre just coming in... The P-40 series
was a single-engined, single-seat, all-metal fighter-bomber that
first flew in 1938. However, the P-40 sprang from an already existing
model, the radial-engined Curtiss P-36 Hawk. Curtiss replaced
the Hawks radial with a V-12, liquid cooled, inline, and after a few
other changes, this switch resulted in a capable fighter aircraft that could
be produced quickly, as the manufacturing lines were already in
place. This sped up production and allowed the P-40 to be ready for
war quickly. In fact, it was already in combat before the US was
involved, serving with the British Commonwealth and Soviet forces.
In all, over 28 Allied
powers during
World War II would use the P-40, and it remained in frontline service
until the end of the war. The P-40 was the third most-produced
American fighter of World War II. The P-51
Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt were #1 and #2, but they were still in
development when the U.S. entered the war. This means the P-40 was
the only single seat fighter available to the U.S. at the time. When
production stopped in November
1944, 13,738 of all P-40 types had been built.
The U.S.
Army Air Corps called
the plane, The P-40, "Warhawk," officially
adopting that name after June 1941. The British
Commonwealth and Soviet air
forces used the name, "Tomahawk" for
the early P-40B, and P-40C models, and, "Kittyhawk" for
all susequent variants. And it was in June,
1941, in the deserts of the Middle East and North Africa that the P-40E Warhawk first saw
combat with British Commonwealth squadrons. This theatre was where the synonymous "shark mouth"
logo first became associated the Warhawk. No.
112 SquadronRoyal
Air Force first added
it to their Tomahawks - copying it from similar
markings on
Luftwaffe Messerschmitt
Bf 110 twin-engine
fighter bombers. Serving
in some capacity across every major theater of the war, it is my
humble opinion that the P-40E was the most critical variant of the
series. Not because it was the best ever, but because it was
mass-produced and made available to the Allies in the early years as the war expanded. It was most needed then, and
America made the "E" version available to help bear much of
the brunt of air combat in the "outlying" conflict
theatres. From
The Beginning The
earlier marks of the P-40, the B and C versions, aka, "Tomahawk",
had been in service since before the war began. But there were never
a lot of them and by 1941, these first P-40 variants were
overtaken in performance. Fortunately, when the U.S. entered the
conflict in 1941, the “E” model had already been in production,
and it joined the ranks in serious numbers. This means that the P-40E faced much of the desperate
fighting during 1942 against Japan in the Far East, South Pacific and
Australia/New Guinea. It also formed the backbone of the Allied
Commonwealth Desert Air Forces in the Middle East against the Germans
and Italians. And lest we forget, the Russians
used them to great effect against the Nazi's in the skies over the
Motherland. Why
The "Echo" Model Mattered Upgraded from the earlier B/C Tomahawk models with a more powerful
engine and six .50-caliber machine guns, the "E" model
could unleash a devastating weight of fire. The P-40E was the first
variant to feature this standardized armament in the wings, a
significant upgrade from earlier models.So it was a potent gun
platform (see the firepower analysis below)*. The P-40E was also exceptionally rugged - it was
structurally durable, offered very good pilot protection, and was
capable of absorbing significant combat damage. Added to that was
its overall good speed and its superior high-speed diving
capabilities. It could out-dive almost any opponent and also
possessed a decent top speed, particularly at low to medium
altitudes. All this while being proven, readily available, and
easily maintained. It brought many a pilots home, to fight another
day.
* FUN
FACT #1 The air marshalls of the United States
wanted an aerial cannon for their aircraft, like other nations were
using at the outbreak of WW2. But they never got a suitable gun into production once
the war started. So they went with what they already had - the .50
cal Browning machine gun. The P-40E, for
example, had 3 of them in each wing, for a total of six. IT soulds like a lot, and it WAS, Let's picture what this meant: - Each .50 cal BMG fired about 800
rpm, or 13-14 rounds per second. - With 6 guns, that's 78-84 .50
cal bullets per second, heading downrange. - The bullets,
themselves, weighed about 1.65 ounces each. This yielded 8.25 POUNDS
of lead per second from a 6 gun burst. - The bullets reached their
target moving at about 3,000-3200 fpm. - This meant that each
bullet delivered 12,000
to 14,000 foot-pounds of force on target! (For
comparison, the standard .30-06, 165 gr. bullet of the period had
only 1,500-1800 ft-lbs of energy) The
high energy of the .50 BMG was designed for anti-material roles, and
could pierce 1-2.5 inches (12.5mm to 30mm) of steel armor at close
ranges. But against aluminum aircraft, well, it had a
literal shredding effect. That's why gun camera footage from the time
shows aircraft and ground targets appearing to just melt, or
disintegrate, under this withering fire.
Critics
Galore The
biggest gripe that arm-chair aviation critics harp on today with the
P-40 is it's lack of a two-stage supercharger. This limited it to
low and medium altitude performance. Which
was a drawback, certainly, if one imagines that there is no other
combat possible but near stratospheric encounters. Its primary opponents, for example, both the Bf-109
of Germany and The A6M "Zero" series of Japan, were
designed with superchargers for single seat interceptor performance and high
altitudes... They had seen the wrting on the wall early and were
ahead of America in this. At the time, the U.S. only had the P-38
Lightning that could fight in the rarified air above 20,000 ft.
It WAS designed as an interceptor, but it was a two-engined aircaft
and was not intended as a dogfighting single seater. But
the ultra high-altitude combat everyone loves to talk about wasn't
the only game in town. In 1942, a lot of the
aerial combat that occured was at low to middle altitudes. And the
P-40E was agile enough to be competitive at these levels.
So tactics eventually developed to keep the altitudes down and take
advantage of the P-40E's strong points. This is what the
talking-heads like to overlook. Good
Performance While
the P-40 was designed as a jack-of-all-trades, rather than a high-altitude, "turn-and-burn," fighter, it was still very maneuverable
at the medium-to-high speeds of 1942. For
instance, the Warhawk "E" model actually had an excellent
high-speed roll rate compared to it's adversaries. The fast roll rate was particularly effective for
evasive maneuvers and transitioning into dives. In 1942, only the
lighter Japanese fighters - the A6M Zero and Ki-43 Oscar - could
dangerously out-turn it. But at higher speeds, these aircraft did not
roll as well. The Zero was especially notorious for ailerons that got
heavy and less effective at high speed. They were also fragile - a
few hits from the P-40's guns could bust them up. They lacked
adequate pilot protection, too, were rather under-gunned as we'll
see, and in 1942, they lacked the all-important self-sealing fuel
tanks. So the P-40 pilot used these
weaknesses to his advantage. Keeping his speed advantage and heavy
firepower in play, the Warhawk pilot rolled out and broke-off if the
encounter slowed to favor a turning-type dogfight. In this way, he
lived to fight another day. Performance
Against Specific Adversaries Many people have been convinced that the German and
Japanese adversaries of 1942 were invincible, "miracle
machines." This viewpoint is reinforced by the fact that the
P-40 was not designed to the same parameters as those two. Yes, the
enemy aircraft were good - but they were not invincible. Bf
109s (E-3, early F) vs.
The P-40E Most
people are surprised to learn that the P-40 could
effectively turn-fight with its German opponents at its favored
altitudes. It did the Germans little good to be 22,000 feet in the
air when Allied forces were attacking their people lower down... so
they were forced to meet the P-40 at altitudes which favored
it. The
P-40E Warhawk and Bf 109E were actually not that far apart in
performance, during the early-to-mid war (1941–1942) period. The Bf
109E held an advantage in acceleration and climb rate, due to a
better power to weight ratio. Messerschmitt's Bf 109E (Emil) also had
a negligible edge in top speed (approx. 360 mph vs. 340-350 mph for the
P-40E), and better energy retention in vertical maneuvers. But these on-paper advantages came at a cost. The Bf-109 didn't
absorb the punishment of six .50 cal's very well, it was slower
diving, and it was sometimes prone to engine issues. Worse, above
275 mph it's
controls also got heavy like the Zero, and the roll
rate was poor. This made the P-40E competitive, as its roll rate
was superior - a key advantage used to escape or out-turn the Bf 109
in dogfights. The Warhawk also excelled
in dive speed, and structural durability. It could turn with the
Bf-109 and was capable and rugged at its favored altitudes. As long
as the German pilot stayed at high altitude, he appeared to be ahead.
But if he engaged the P-40 where it was, he had at least a 50-50
chance of falling victim to the guns of the American plane. Conclusion One
must always keep in mind the design parameters behind the Curtiss
P-40E Warhawk:
-
Low-to-medium altitude combat - Versatility - Well armed
and armored -
Durability - Quickly
producible...manufactured
in large numbers using existing production lines. These were
rather different
criteria compared to the Bf-109 in 1942. So while some consider the P-40
"technically inferior" in certain performance qualities,
the numbers show it wasn't a lamb to the slaughter, as many
imagine in hindsight. Rather, the P-40E’s good qualities and its
ruggedness allowed it to compete effectively against the 109E,
particularly in the Mediterranean theater. A6M
Zero vs.
The P-40E In
the Pacific theater, things were different. The P-40 was facing the
early marks of two Japanese aircraft: the Mitsubushi A6M fighter
...the infamous "Zero"... and the Ki-43 Hayabusa, aka,
"Oscar." The latter was known as the, "Army Zero," so
we'll focus on the Zero as the two were essentially the same. Now,
here's the elephant in the room: With either of these, and
especially the early Zero, the Warhawk could not effectively
dogfight at lower speeds. The Warhawk was out-turned by
the Japanese fighters. Why? Because we have to remember that – like
the Bf-109 - the A6M Zero of 1942, and the P-40E Warhawk had
contrasting roles. Put simply, each was designed to very
different criteria. The Zero was almost feathery, compared to
the P-40, and was designed for... - Long, ocean-covering range... it was a Naval fighter - Almost kite-like maneuverability -
Fast climb to altitude - Low-speed agility But to achieve
these aims, the Zero's designers sacrificed pilot survivability,
structural aircraft ruggedness, and aircraft self-survival. The noble
warrior mentality of Japanese tradition seems to have been part of
their thinking. P-40 pilots soon learned they were outclassed in
slow speed, twisting dogfights with Japanese fighters. The
Japanese pilot wanted them to fall for it, of course, and they did in
the beginning because, well... that's how fighter pilots are supposed
to fight, right? But the Allies had to quickly accept that was a bad
idea, and instead, they leaned on their superior diving ability,
their competitive speed and the ability to roll out and come around
fast to their advantage. At the risk of being redundant, we must
again review the differences in design philosophy
between the Zero and the P-40E Warhawk in 1942. The P-40E brought to
the fight...
- A notable edge in speed - Heavier, more rugged
construction - Superior roll rate at speed - Faster dive
speeds - Good pilot protection - Sefl-sealing fuel tanks -
Potent firepower Basically, it favored high-speed combat, making
it better for "boom-and-zoom" tactics. Key
Differences: Aero/Performance The
A6M2 boasted unmatched turn performance - at slow speeds. At high
speeds, however, its ailerons became increasingly heavier and
ineffective. The P-40E was notably faster at its favored altitudes
and possessed a much better roll rate at high speeds. Much like
the Bf-109 pilot, the Zero pilot had some advantage - as long as he
stayed high in the sky, or got his opponent to engage in a slow,
slugging dogfight. But once he came down to where the fight was, he
lost much of his advantage. Combat
Tactics The
Zero was a bantamweigh, structurally built as a toe-dancing
dogfighter, while the P-40E was heavier and best used in diving
attacks. The Zero pilot wanted
to get the Warhawk pilot into a slow dogfight – and the P-40 pilot
had to break out of that envelope and change the rules. Durability The
P-40E was extremely durable compared to the Zero, with armor
protection and self-sealing fuel tanks, whereas the Zero of 1942 was
rather fragile, and prone to catching fire. Armament The
Zero featured 20mm cannons, which was the norm everywhere but in the USAAC. But, they had a slow
rate of fire (half that of the Browning .50 cal.). They also fired a
lower velocity shell, there were only two of them on board. They also had a limited ammunition capacity. A couple seconds of shooting, and
they were outta ammo. On the other hand, the P-40E carried six,
.50-caliber machine guns, which had a much higher rate of fire,
higher velocity bullets, more ammo, and a consistently heavier weight
of fire. See the above analysis of the P-40 machine gun
armament. The
Zero achieved higher kill ratios early in the war due to
its agility, but the P-40E pilots soon adopted different tactics.
After that, the Warhawk served as a vital, sturdy, and effective
deterrent in the Pacific, particularly when employing hit-and-run
tactics to mitigate the Zero's turning capabilities. When
Useful Beats Perfection When
all the GOOD attributes possessed by the P-40E are combined, we find
it was a tough, reliable workhorse. It was effective in the Pacific
and North African theaters, particularly when using boom-and-zoom
tactics to counter more maneuverable, but fragile, opponents like the
Japanese Zero. While often overshadowed by "glamorous"
rivals like the Spitfire, or pushed to the back by P-51 devotees, the
fact remains that the P-40 held its own against the odds. Eventually, newer types came available in sufficient numbers and P-40 production
ended. But it was the P-40E, the strong, potent warhorse, that held the line
during the desperate battles of 1942. Kill
Ratio At
this point, we should mention kill ratios. This is a measure of how
many enemy aircraft are brought down or put out of action, for every
Allied plane engaged. In the case of the P-40E, this kill ratio was
not a high number. The 10:1 ratios you see for planes like the
P-51 or F6F Hellcat are often held against the P-40. But we must
recognize that those high kill ratios came later in the war, as a
result of superior numbers, ever-better aircraft, endless resources,
and the loss of experienced pilots in the enemy ranks as the war
ground on. The Allies overwhelmed them with resources they could
not match, and we did it on every front. The enemy was
constantly facing more and better aircraft wherever they turned, and
their production could never come close to keeping up. We had more
experienced pilots, too, always transitioning through constantly
improving combat planes. By 1944 and beyond, anything with enemy
markings was shot out of the sky by as many Allied aircraft as
possible. It was a matter of attrition, frankly.
FUN
FACT #2: In the Pacific theatre, the later P-40N was often painted with white tails, big white
stripes, colorful spinners and more, so that all the trigger happy Allied
pilots would not mistake them for Japanese aircraft. Friendly fire
was a big problem!
The P-40E, on the other hand, was on its own against the best
aircraft and pilots the enemy could bring into the game. 1942 was not
a good year for the Allied air forces, especially against Japan. Not
only were tactics still being ironed out for much of that year, but
the Japanese still had a lot of good aircraft - and
pilots - in the air. While the Japanese planes were better at
aerobatic dogfighting, the robust P-40 managed to slug it out for
a positive, albeit closely contested, positive kill ratio
against Japanese forces in the South Pacific and CBI theatres. This
ratio averaged out in the range of 1.5-to-1 by
late 1942. P-40E
"Kill" Numbers vs. Japan The
P-40E Warhawk was widely used early in the Pacific theater, and
achieved a respectable - and often favorable - kill ratio against
Japanese aircraft by utilizing boom-and-zoom tactics. The Zero pilot had to
heavily damage the rugged P-40 in order to shoot it down, while the 6
x .50 cal machine guns of the P-40 were lethal with even a few hits
on the Japanese planes. Many records indicate that in
1942, the P-40E Warhawk/Kittyhawk could hold the fort, and it
maintained a surprisingly competitive, slightly positive, kill ratio
of
1.5-1 record against the Japanese pilots. Specialized units like
the American Volunteer Group (AVG), "Flying
Tigers,"and
the 49th Fighter Group (using P-40Es) maintained high success rates
through superior tactics and diving speed. The AVG boasted a high kill ratio of roughly 296
enemy aircraft for 12 pilots killed in action. These tallies are often disputed and some of those numbers
surely include "other" aircraft, like bombers, transports
etc. But even if the total number of Japanese fighters was a quarter
of that, it solidly demonstrates the effectiveness of the P-40E in
skilled hands.
-
49th Fighter Group: Between
April and August 1942, this group shot down over 60 Japanese planes
to gain air superiority over Darwin, Australia. -
Ace Records: Over 200 Allied
fighter pilots – from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South
Africa, the U.S. and the Soviet Union – became aces flying
the P-40. These included at least 20 double
aces, mostly over North Africa, China-Burma-India, the South West
Pacific and Eastern Europe! Over time, next-generation Japanese
and Allied aircraft eclipsed the P-40 as they came on-line, but it
was the P-40E that held down the fort in the early years. P-40E
"Kill"Numbers vs. Germany The
P-40's overall, cumulative, multi-theater kill ratio against Germany
is often cited as high, even as it was challenged in direct dogfights
against the Messerschmitt 109. But lets remind you that the P-40 was
NOT a European fighter...the term, "multi-theatre" is
important. Because it lacked a two-stage supercharger, the
Warhawks effectiveness above 15,000 feet was reduced. For this reason
it was not used in Western Europe as an interceptor or high-altitude
bomber escort. Most of the P-40's criticisms arise here, as the
Spitfire or the P-51 Mustang inevitably become (unfairly) the comparison
standard. In the mind of P-40 detractors, if it wasn't those aircraft, then they find ways to deem it,
"useless." This has become the default crutch of the
Warhawk critics. But if one puts that narrow view aside, and
examines the Warhawk's results against the air forces of Germany
outside of Western Europe, we find a different story. Mediterranean/North
Africa In the hand of the Allies, the P-40 saw widespread use in North Africa, the Mediterranean and Italy until late 1944, often proving to be a formidable opponent. There is
data from units in the Mediterranean that show impressive records
achieved by leveraging the aircraft's strengths in low-to-medium
altitude combat. While seen as slightly inferior to the Bf
109, the P-40E was effective when using "hit-and-run"
tactics, with units often exceeding 2:1 ratios. Soviet
Service On the Eastern Front, Soviet pilots found the P-40E without vices, and comparable to the
Bf-109E, though it was not as good against later German models, the F
and G series 109's and the next-generation Focke-Wulf 190. Of
the 1,500 P-40E-1's (export version) originally intended for the
RAF, nearly 600 were diverted to the Soviet Union to bolster
their defenses in the early phase of the German
invasion. Eventually, the
Russians developed their own range of high-altitude, air superiority
fighters to confront the Bf-109 and Fw-190's. But the P-40 soldiered
on in the VVS, where its qualities as a low-altitude
fighter, ground-attack, or escort fighter were put to good usemissions.
Notable
Combat Records Against The Bf-109
The
325th Fighter Group ("The Checkertail
Clan") These guys claimed a total of 135 Axis aircraft in Italy, for the loss of only 17 P-40s in combat. That's an almost shocking 8:1 victory ratio, and 96
of those kills were Bf-109s.
324th
Fighter Group: This unit maintained a ratio better than 2:1 while
fighting German and Italian forces in the MTO.
Desert
Air Forces (RAF/RAAF/SAAF): During the North African campaigns,
P-40 pilots (flying Kittyhawk 1A's) were credited with approximately
53.5 claims in specific high-intensity periods (like October 1942),
significantly outscoring opposing German records for the same
period. The P-40's success rate against the Luftwaffe was highly
dependent on unit training and tactical application, with kill ratios
ranging from parity to quite high among specialized American units.
The P-40E's six, .50 caliber machine guns provided substantial
firepower, and its rugged construction allowed pilots to survive
damage that would have downed more fragile aircraft, contributing to
its favorable loss ratios. In
summary, the
P-40 performed surprisingly well as an air combat fighter against
German forces, sometimes enduring tough losses, yes....but also
inflicting a very heavy toll on enemy aircraft. All
while considered, "useless" by many. Conclusion Although The Warhawk gained a postwar reputation as at best a mediocre, at best, more recent
research and scrutiny of Allied squadron records indicate this
reputation is wholly undeserved. The P-40 also offered
other advantages that most people don't take into account - plusses usually neglected when
compared to the more popular fighters of the day. These include such
VERY strong attributes as relatively low cost in a proven design from an established manufacturer. We can likewise count good pilot protecton,
ease of maintenance, and exceedingly rugged durability as well. ANd we cannot dance around its versatility. It was an excellent ground attack and air support fighter. These
features kept it in production – and in the fight - long after its
service as an interceptor/fighter had passed. ALong these lines, it is interesting to learn that some P-40
pilots in Europe nicknamed the P-40N variant the, "B-40" - for its performance as a bomb hauling fighter. This
variant could carry around 1,000 lbs. of bombs and common loadouts included a 500 lb bomb
on the belly rack and two 250 lb, or 500 lb bombs under the
wings. And
while these bombing runs might enjoy near-surgical precision, it was
also an extremely hazardous operation. The Germans had excellent
anti-aircraft weapons and their crews were very experienced.
That's when the ruggedness of the P-40 came into play. Many a Warhawk
pilot came back to base with severe damage after such missions –
but they came back. Although there were efforts made later to develop
the P-40 into a high altitude interceptor - it never really happened.
The P-40N was put on a diet and could eventually reach a top speed of
380 mph. But it never was a high-altitude interceptor. And to be
blunt, it didn't need to be. Other planes came along by mid-war to fill
that role. Rather, the P-40 line remained throughout the conflict,
just as it come into the war: well capable of most things, if not
perfect at all things.
And that is a testimony that will stand for
the ages.
✪
As a scale modeler of WWII aircraft, I'm a fan of the Curtiss P-40 series of American fighters, with the P-40E ny favorite. I like others, of course - the P-47, or F6F Hellcat, for example. And I know that many will see the name, "P-40" and dismiss it out of hand, making silly claims about its uselessness. So I have gone a different way. Instead of following the crowd, trying to declare the P-40 as "no good," I looked for reasons why it was as successful as it was - because it was sucessful when it was most needed. Yeah, I'm a P-40E fan.
✪
The Curtiss P-40EThe Curtiss P-40 Warhawk was the United States' best fighter available in large numbers when World War II began. That says a lot and Ill explain why as we go along. The p-40 wasa single-engined, single-seat, all-metal fighter-bomber that first flew in 1938. However, the P-40 sprang from an already existing model, the Curtiss P-36 Hawk. It replaced the Hawks radial engine with a V-12, liquid cooled, inline. This reduced development time and sped up production. The Warhawk was used by 28 Allied powers during World War II, and remained in frontline service until the end of the war.
The P-40 was also the third most-produced American fighter of World War II. The P-51 Mustang and P-47 Thunderbolt were #1 and #2, but they were still in development when the US entered the war. This meant the P-40 was the only single seat fighter available to the U.S. When production stopped in November 1944, 13,738 of all types had been built. The U.S. Army Air Corps called the plane, The P-40, "Warhawk," officially adopting that name after June 1941. The British Commonwealth and Soviet air forces used the name, "Tomahawk" for the early P-40B, and P-40C models, and, "Kittyhawk" for all susequent variants. And it was in June, 1941, in the deserts of the Middle East and North Africa with British Commonwealth squadrons that the Warhawk first saw combat. This was where the infamous "shark mouth" logo, synonymous with the Warhawk, was first used. No. 112 SquadronRoyal Air Force, added it to their Tomahawks in North Africa, copying it from similar markings on Luftwaffe Messerschmitt Bf 110 twin-engine fighter bombers! Serving in some capacity across every major theater of the war, it is my humble opinion that the P-40E was the most critical variant of the series. Not because it was the best or the most successful. Rather, because it was mass-produced and made available to the Allies in the crucial first year of the war, when it was most needed. The other aircraft of the Allies (primarily British) were already committed, so America produced the P-40E and made it avaulable to help bear much of the brunt of air combat in the "outlying" conflict theatres. From The Beginning The earlier marks of the P-40, the B and C versions, aka, "Tomahawk", had been in service since before the war began. But there were never a lot of them and by late 1941, these first P-40 variants were overtaken in performance. Fortunately, when the U.S. entered the conflict in 1941, the “E” model had already been in production, and it joined the ranks in serious numbers. This means that the P-40E faced much of the desperate fighting during 1942 against Japan in the Far East, South Pacific and Australia/New Guinea. It also formed the backbone of the Allied Commonwealth Desert Air Forces in the Middle East against the Germans and Italians. And lest we forget, the Russians used them to great effect against the Nazi's in the skies over the Motherland. Why It Mattered Upgraded from the earlier B/C models with a more powerful engine and six .50-caliber machine guns, the "E" model could unleash a devastating weight of fire.* So it was a potent gun platform. That is important. The P-40E was also exceptionally rugged - it was structurally durable, it offered very good pilot protection, and was capable of absorbing significant combat damage. Added to that was its superior high-speed diving capabilities. It could out-dive almost any opponent and also possessed a decent top speed, particularly at low to medium altitudes.All this while being proven, readily available, and easily maintained. It brought many a pilots home, to fight another day. Critics Galore The biggest gripe that arm-chair aviation critics harp on today was the P-40's lack of a two-stage supercharger. This limited it to low and medium altitude performance. Which was a drawback, certainly. For example, both the Bf-109 of Germany and The A6M "Zero" series of Japan were designed for interceptor performance at high altitudes. Only had the P-38 Lightning was able to fight in the rarified air above 20,000 ft. But it was a two-engined aircaft and was not intended as a dogfighting single seaterailable to America at the time that was able to fight in the rarified air above 20,000 ft. But the ultra high-altitude combat everyone loves to talk about was primarily a feature of the mid to late European air war, once the Allied bomber campaigns got underway. On the other hand, in 1942, a lot of the aerial combat that occured was at low to middle altitudes. And the P-40E was agile enough to be competitive at these levels. So tactics eventually developed to keep the altitudes down and take advantage of the P-40E's strong points. This is what the talking-heads overlook. Good Performance While designed as more of a jack-of-all-trades, rather than a "turn-and-burn" fighter, The P-40 was still verymaneuverable at the medium-to-high speeds of 1942. For instance, the Warhawk "E" model actually had an excellent high-speed roll rate compared to it's adversaries. The fast roll rate was particularly effective for evasive maneuvers and transitioning into dives. In 1942, only the lighter Japanese fighters - the A6M Zero and Ki-42 Oscar - could dangerously out-turn it. But at higher speeds, these aircraft did not roll as well. The Zero was especially notorious for having heavy aelierons at high speed. They were also fragile - a few hits from the P-40's guns could put them down. They lacked adequate pilot protection, too, were rather under-gunned by comparison, and in 1942, they lacked the all-important self-sealing fuel tanks. So the P-40 pilot used these weaknesses to his advantage. Keeping his speed advantage and heavy firepower in play, the Warhawk pilot rolled out and broke-off if the encounter slowed to favor a turning-type dogfight. In this way, he lived to fight another day. Performance Against Specific Adversaries Many people have adopted the outlook that the German and Japanese adversaries of 1942 were invincible miracle machines. This viewpoint is enhanced by the fact that the P-40 was not designed to the same parameters as those two. Yes, they were good - but they were not invincible, Lets have a look at them. Bf 109s (E-3, F-4):The P-40E could effectively turn-fight with these opponents at its favored altitudes. It did the Germans little good to be 20,000 feet in the air when their opponents were lower down...so they were forced to meet the P-40 at altitudes which favored it. The P-40E Warhawk and Bf 109E were actually closely matched in the early-to-mid war (1941–1942), with the Bf 109E holding slight advantages in speed and climb, while the P-40E excelled in dive speed, roll rate, and structural durability. The P-40E was a capable, rugged low-altitude fighter, often achieving a positive kill-to-loss ratio against the Bf 109E in combat. It wasn't the slaughter everyone evnisions. P-40E Warhawk (Kittyhawk IA) strengths were excellent dive speed, good roll rate, strong structure, and effective .50 caliber firepower. Its power-to-weight ratio was less than the Bf-109, so the German fighter had an advantage in climb rate and acceleration, although top speed for both was quite close. At high-altitudes, the P-40E was simply out of the running and could not match the 109. It was, after all, a low-to-medium-altitude fighter/bomber/ground attack aircraft... not a dedicated interceptor. Messerschmitt's Bf 109E (Emil) had a slight edge in speed (approx. 360 mph vs. 340-350 mph for the P-40E), could climb faster and had better energy retention in vertical maneuvers. At the same time, it was less able to absorb punishment, was slower diving, and sometimes prone to engine issues. Its intended role was as a dedicated interceptor and air-superiority fighter. So we end up in a sort of apples-to-oranges comparison - something most people overlook. Combat Results: Despite being considered "technically inferior" in certain performance qualities, the P-40E’s ruggedness allowed it to compete effectively against the 109E, particularly in the Mediterranean theater. One must keep in mind the design philosophy behind the Curtiss P-40E Warhawk: a rugged, heavily armed, and quickly producible fighter that could be manufactured in large numbers using existing production lines. High altitude interception was NOT part of its design thinking. Rather, it was intended fo rthese attributes: - Low-to-medium altitude combat - Versatility - Heavily armed and armored - Durability The Bf 109E, by contrast, was intended to be a fast, high-altitude interceptor. Overall, the P-40E proved to be a good fighter in the Mediterranean and North African theatres. A6M Zero: In the Pacific theater, the P-40 was out-turned by this lighter Japanese fighter, particularly at lower speeds. So the P-40 pilot avoided twisting, turning dogfights with Japanese fighters, and instead, used diving, speed and the ability to break off to his advantage. The Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero and Curtiss P-40E Warhawk had contrasting, specialized roles. The Zero was designed for maneuverability, climb rate to altitude, and low-speed agility. In contrast, the P-40E was faster, heavier, rugged, and superior in diving and high-speed combat, making it better for "boom-and-zoom" tactics.
Key Differences:
Aero/Performance: The A6M2 boasted unmatched turn performance - at slow speeds. The P-40E was notably faster at lower altitudes and possessed a much better roll rate at high speeds.
Combat Tactics: The Zero was light and structurally a dogfighter, while the P-40E was heavier and best used in diving attacks.
Durability: The P-40E was highly durable with armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, whereas the Zero was fragile, and prone to catching fire.
Armament: The Zero featured 20mm cannons, which were potent but had a slow rate of fire, lower velocity and limited ammunition. By contrast, the P-40E carried six .50-caliber machine guns, which had a higher rate of fire, higher velocity, and a consistently heavier weigth of fire Conclusion: The Zero sometimes achieved higher kill ratios early in the war due to its agility, the P-40E pilots soon adopted different tactics. After that the Warhawk served as a vital, sturdy, and effective deterrent in the Pacific, particularly when employing hit-and-run tactics to mitigate the Zero's superior turning capabilities When Useful Beats Perfection When all the GOOD attributes possessed by the P-40E were combined, we find it was a tough, reliable workhorse. It was effective in the Pacific and North African theaters, particularly when using boom-and-zoom tactics to counter more maneuverable, but fragile, opponents like the Japanese Zero. While often overshadowed by "glamorous" rivals like the Spitfire or Bf 109, or pushed to the back by P-51 devotees, the fact remains that the P-40 was the third most-produced American fighter, with 13,738 of all types built.
And it was the P-40E, the strong, potent warhorse, that held the line during the desperate battles of 1942. * FUN FACT The air marshalls of the United States wanted an aerial cannon for their aircraft, like other nations were using in WW2. But they never got a suitable gun into production once the war started. So they went with what they already had - the .50 cal Browning machine gun. The P-40E, for example, had 3 of them in each wing, for a total of six. Now, let us picture what this meant: - Each .50 cal BMG fired about 800 rpm, or 13-14 rounds per second. - With 6 guns, that's 78-84 .50 cal bullets per second, heading downrange. -The bullets, themselves, weighed about 1.65 ounces each. This yielded 8.25 POUNDS of lead per second from a 6 gun burst. - The bullets reached their target moving at about 3,000-3200 fpm. - This meant that each bullet delivered 12,000 to 14,000 foot-pounds force on target! For comparison, the standard .30-06, 165 gr. bullet of the period had only 1,500-1800 ft-lbs of energy) The high energy of the .50 BMG was designed for anti-material roles, and could pierce 12.5mm to 30mm of steel armor at close ranges. But against aluminum aircraft, well, it had a literal shredding effect. That's why gun camera footage from the time shows aircraft and ground targets appearing to just melt, or disintegrate, under this withering fire. Kill Ratio At this point, we should mention kill ratios. This is a measure of how many enemy aircraft were shot down for every American plane engaged. In the case of the P-40E, it was not a high number. The 10:1 ratios you see for some planes like the P-51 or F6F Hellcat are usually held against the P-40. But we must recognize that those high kill ratios came later in the war, as a result of superior numbers, ever-better aircraft, endless resources, and the loss of experienced pilots in the enemy ranks as the war ground on. The Allies overwhelmed them with resources they could not match, and we did it on every front. So they were constantly facing more and better aircraft wherever they turned and their production could never come close to keeping up. We had more experienced pilots, too, all transitioning through an endless line of always improving combat planes. By 1944, anything with enemy markings was shot out of the sky by as many Allied aircraft as possible. It was a matter of attrition, frankly. The P-40E, on the other hand, was going it alone against the best aircraft and pilots the enemy could bring into the game. 1942 was not a good year for the Allied air forces, especially against Japan. The Curtiss P-40, nevertheless, achieved a respectable, positive kill ratio against Japanese forces in the South Pacific and CBI theatres. This ratio was in the range of 1.5-to-1 by late 1942. Thats better than parity, against the best that Japan had. Not only were tactics still being ironed out for much of that year, but the Japanese and Germans had a lot of good aircraft - and pilots - in the air. While the Japanese planes were better at aerobatic dogfighting, and the somewhat faster, fuel-injected Bf 109 could climb better, the robust P-40 managed to slug it out for a positive, albeit closely contested,gain. P-40E Performance vs. Japan:In the Pacific/CBI theaters, the P-40 was highly effective against Japanese aircraft like the Nakajima Ki-43 "Oscar" and Ki-43 "Oscar".
49th Fighter Group: Between April and August 1942, this group shot down over 60 Japanese planes to gain air superiority over Darwin, Australia.
Ace Records: Over 40 US pilots achieved ace status (5+ kills) flying the P-40 in the China-Burma-India (CBI) theater.
Top Ace: Australian pilot Clive Caldwell claimed 22 of his 28.5 kills in a P-40, showcasing its potential in experienced hands.
P-40E Performance vs. Germany The
P-40's overall, cumulative, multi-theater kill ratio is often cited
as high, even as it was challenged in direct dogfights
against the Messerschmitt 109. Mediterranean/North Africa: There is data from specialized units in the Mediterranean and Eastern Front
that show impressive records achieved by leveraging the aircraft's
strengths in low-to-medium altitude combat. While often considered slightly inferior to the Bf
109, the P-40E was effective when using "hit-and-r
un"
tactics, with units often exceeding 2:1 ratios. Soviet Service: On the Eastern Front, Soviet pilots found the P-40E comparable to the Bf-109E, though it was not as good when dogfighting later German models, like the Me-109F and G series. Of the 1,500 P-40E-1's (export version) originally intended for the RAF, nearly 600 were diverted to the Soviet Union to bolster their defenses in the early phase of the German invasion. The Russians came to use it more as a low-altitude fighter, or in ground-attack and escort missions, rather than as an air-superiority fighter against high-altitude German fighters.
Key
Unit Performance:The 325th Fighter Group achieved a
notable 135:17 victory ratio, with 96 of those kills being Bf-109s. Combat
Characteristics: Pilots favored the P-40 for its robust
structure, high diving speed, and stability, despite being slower
than some opponents. Effectiveness: The
P-40 saw widespread use in North Africa and Italy until late 1944,
often proving to be a formidable opponent despite not being the
top-tier fighter of the era.
Notable
Combat Records
325th
Fighter Group ("Checkertail
Clan"): In Italy, this unit achieved a staggering 8:1 kill
ratio, claiming 135 Axis aircraft (including 96 German Bf-109s) for
the loss of only 17 P-40s in combat.
324th
Fighter Group:
This unit maintained a ratio better than 2:1 while fighting German
and Italian forces in the MTO.
Desert
Air Forces
(RAF/RAAF/SAAF): During the North African campaigns, P-40 pilots
(flying Kittyhawks) were credited with approximately 53.5 claims in
specific high-intensity periods (like October 1942), significantly
outscoring opposing German records for the same period.
Strategic
Performance Factors
Altitude
Limitations: Because the P-40E lacked a two-stage supercharger, its
effectiveness above 15,000 feet was reduced. For this reason it was
not used in Western Europe for high-altitude bomber escort missions.
This is where most to the P-40's criticisms arise, as the P-51
Mustang eventually (and unfairly) becomes the comparison
standard.
Durability and Firepower: The P-40E's six .50 caliber
machine guns provided substantial firepower. Its rugged construction
allowed pilots to survive damage that would have downed more fragile
aircraft, contributing to its favorable loss ratios.
Comparison
to Other Theaters: While the early P-40C is famous for a roughly 15:1
or 25:1 kill ratio against Japan in China (AVG), its performance
against Germany was more heavily challenged by superior aircraft like
the Messerschmitt Bf 109 F and G variants and Focke-Wulf Fw 190.
In
summary, the P-40's success rate against the Luftwaffe was highly
dependent on unit training and tactical application, ranging from
parity to high kill ratio's among specialized
American units.
A total of 2,320 Curtiss P-40E aircraft were produced.
The production was split between two primary designations:
P-40E-1: 1,500 aircraft were produced for the British Royal Air Force (RAF) under the Lend-Lease program, where they were known as the Kittyhawk IA.
Key Production Facts
Total P-40 Series: Across all variants, approximately 13,738 P-40s were manufactured between 1939 and 1944.
Variants: The P-40E was the first variant to feature a standardized armament of six .50 caliber machine guns in the wings, a significant upgrade from earlier models.
Service: While the P-40E is famously associated with the Flying Tigers (AVG) in China, the group originally operated earlier P-40B/C "Tomahawk" models before later pilots transitioned to the E-series.
Yes, the Soviet Union received a significant number of P-40E-1 (Kittyhawk IA) aircraft through the Lend-Lease program. In fact, they were one of the largest operators of the P-40 series outside of the United States and Great Britain.
The Soviet P-40E Numbers
While exact delivery numbers can vary slightly between historical records, the consensus is:
Total P-40s to USSR: Approximately 2,100 to 2,400 units of all variants.
P-40E Distribution: Of the 1,500 P-40E-1s originally intended for the RAF, nearly 600 were diverted specifically to the Soviet Union to bolster their defenses against the German invasion.
Although it gained a postwar reputation as a mediocre design, more recent research and scrutiny of Allied squadron records indicate this reputation is wholly undeserved. In fact, the P-40 performed surprisingly well as an air superiority/air combat fighter, sometimes enduring severe losses, yes....but also inflicting a very heavy toll on enemy aircraft. Need proof? Based on war-time victory tallies, over 200 Allied fighter pilots – from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, the U.S. and the Soviet Union – became aces flying the P-40. These included at least 20 double aces, mostly over North Africa, China-Burma-India, the South West Pacific and Eastern Europe! The P-40 offered other advantages, too, plusses that are usually neglected when compared to the more popular fighters of the day. These include such VERY strong attributes as relatively low cost, good pilot protecton, ease of maintenance, and exceedingly rugged durability. These features kept it in production as a solid fighter-bomber long after its time as an interceptor/fighter had passed. At one point, P-40 pilots in Europe nicknamed the P-40N variant the, "B-40," for its performace in this role. Although there efforts made later to develop the P-40 into a high altitude interceptor - it never really happened. It wasn't neccessary, as other planes came along to fill that role. And - the P-40 didn't need to be. Rather, the P-40 line remained throughout the conflict, just as it came into the war: well capable of most things, if not perfect at all things. And that is a testimony that will stand for the ages.
