Warhawk VS. ME-109?

Discussions on History. Please keep on topic & friendly. Provocative & one sided political posts will be deleted.

Re: Warhawk VS. ME-109?

Postby Professor Brensec » Sun Jul 25, 2004 2:15 am

I was reading a book a few months ago by an Australian who flew in New Guinea and ended up attached to the RAF in North Africa.

He said of the P40 and the Bf109 (words to this effect):

The P40 was a plane of strengths and weaknesses. We learnt very quickly how to use the strengths against the slower and 'weakly armoured' Zero's. But the Bf109 was a faster aircraft which could dive as quicklly and climb faster, so in a 'dogfight', the only real advantage was a tighter turn, which is handy but won't always win out (as it didn't with the Zeros).

I'm inclined to agree with all of this (as if I would know any better anyway). But in answer to the original question, much as I would like for the P40 to have been fitted with a better engine, more suited to it's good turning & handling abilities, it was never considered as a 'serious fighter'. Just a stop gap, until they could produce the replacements.

They kept using them though......... ;)
Image
Image
http://www.ra.online-plus.biz


I cried because I had no shoes - until I saw a man who had no feet.
User avatar
Professor Brensec
Major
Major
 
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2002 10:40 pm
Location: SYDNEY - AUSTRALIA

Previous

Return to History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 191 guests