Talk:Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Caldwell/Stahlschmidt[edit]

Regarding the following:

Caldwell scored another striking victory in February 1942, while leading a formation of 11 Kittyhawks from 112 Sqn and 3 Sqn. Over Gazala, he sighted a gaggle of Bf 109Fs flying some 2,000 feet higher. Caldwell immediately nosed into a shallow dive, applied maximum power and boost, then pulled his Kittyhawk up into a vertical climb. With his P-40 "hanging from its propeller" he fired a burst at a 109 flown by Leutnant Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt of I./JG27, who was lagging behind the others. Stahlschmidt's fighter "shuddered like a carpet being whacked with a beater" before spinning out of control. Although the Kittyhawk pilots thought that the 109 had crashed inside Allied lines, Stahlschmidt was able to crash-land in friendly territory.

I have copied this passage verbatim to the Caldwell article, which is where I feel it really belongs. It is testament to Caldwell's marksmanship, aggression and tactics but not to any innate abilities of the P-40. Would anyone object to its removal from this article? Grant | Talk 03:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. Bzuk (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC).
No problem, paragraph now removed and footnote on Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt's page altered.Minorhistorian (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Spars vs. Longerons[edit]

Under "Performance characteristics" the P-40 is described as having a "seven-longeron wing." These are probably small points to make, but the first problem with this is that "longerons" are typically associated with fuselage structures (wings have "spars" as their major structural component), and the other problem would be that the P-40 wing is considered to have five major structural load-bearing members, not seven. An inspection of a P-40 wing (these details are especially apparent on a disassembled wing panel) will reveal the spars are placed 1) just aft of the wing leading edge (to this spar the main landing gear trunnions are attached on the wing's lower surface & the fuselage's forward bulkhead---the "firewall"---rides atop it), 2) & 3) what might be described as two "main spars"---they straddle the aerodynamic center of the wing & thus carry the majority of the load on the wing---run tip to tip just ahead of the main landing gear wheel wells (the main landing gear retraction mechanisms are mounted between these spars as is the 35 gallon "front wing" fuel tank in a bay between the landing gear assemblies; also, on P-40s so equipped, between these spars are mounted any bomb/drop tank shackles either on the aircraft centerline or outboard of the gun bays), 4) just aft of the main landing gear wheel wells (the major fuselage bulkhead to which the pilot's seat is mounted & which separates the cockpit from the aft fuselage area rides atop this spar; between spar 3 & 4, the 50 gallon "main wing" fuel tank--54 gallons in the P-40N--is mounted in the bay between the main wheel wells, & the gun & ammo bays are placed between these spars outboard of the main wheel wells), & 5) at the wing flap hinge & extending outboard just ahead of the aileron wells (this spar carries the loads of the flaps & ailerons). This wonderfully strong wing structure is composed of two major units (left & right wing panels) joined along butt ribs at the aircraft centerline, plus detachable wingtips. The P-40 Erection & Maintenance Manual describes the wing as a "multi-cellular" structure, which is also how the manual describes the fixed tail surfaces. The P-40 would be more correctly described in this article as having a "five-spar wing." William Green refers to this structure in his discussion of the P-75 Eagle in his 1961 series of books on the Fighters of World War Two (the P-75 was originally cobbled together from existing major structural components of in-service aircraft, with the first prototype utilizing P-40 wing panels).71.228.225.234 (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

Querying RAF numbers/squadrons[edit]

I don't have access to a good general reference on this right now, but I have removed the number of "930" P-40s provided for P-40s in UK/DAF service as this page says that the RAF ordered 20 Tomahawk IIA and 930 Tomahawk IIB, not counting other variants. Does anyone have a copy of Holmes & Thomas's book handy?

Also, I'm not sure where the figure of 12 RAF P-40 squadrons comes from. I am only aware of six in the DAF — 73 (briefly), 94 (briefly), 112, 208 (briefly), 250 and 260 Sqns. The only other P-40 sqns in the DAF I am aware of were SAAF (2,4 and 5 Sqn) and RAAF (3 and 450). The other DAF tactical fighter squadrons used Hurricanes/Spitfires.

According to rafweb.org, 2, 4, 16, 26, 168, 171, 231, 234, 239, 241, 268 and 613 Sqns RAF also used Tomahawks, presumably in other theaters. None of these used Kittyhawks. However that site misses 73 Sqn, so I'm wondering about its accuracy too.

That makes a total of 18 RAF squadrons in Europe/Mediterranean. There were also four RCAF units (400, 403, 414, 430 Sqns). Grant | Talk 02:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

When the person says " 20 RAF squadrons" he/she means all of commonwealth probably, anyways, with the roundels it's difficult to make any difference between RAF, RAAF, SAAF etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.169.205 (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Overclaiming kills again[edit]

I think we should mention to the reader that over claiming was not a German specialty, but inadvertently done by anybody. In his “The First Team” books J.B. Lundstrom cross references both sides’ claims and casualty reports. Result: Over claiming by at least 100% was the rule. Other books(K.H. Golla “Der Fall Griechenlands”) and the articles on the Schweinfurt raids confirm that. So what about telling the reader “, it should be noted that cross referencing one sides claims with the other sides casualty reports shows the claims usually exceeded the actual number of kills made.” Markus Becker02 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get caught by overgeneralisations. There is evidence of serious overclaiming by JG 27 in North Africa (compared e.g. to the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain). Whereas many DAF pilots had reasonable claims rejected, because their opponents were not seen to hit the ground. The same cannot be said for JG 27. There is an appendix on this subject in Russell Brown's Desert Warriors. Regards, Grant (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not an overgeneralisation, but fact. The sources I mentioned clearly show evidence of serious overclaiming. Just read Lundstrom´s book, if you don´t believe it.Markus Becker02 (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Lundstrom's book is about US v Japanese units in the Pacific War, I fail to see its relevance to German claims v Commonwealth units in North Africa(?!) Grant (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Jagdgeschwader 27 article:

Australian author Russell Brown has cast doubt on the accuracy of aerial victory claims by JG27 pilots in North Africa. Brown, who has researched the records of individual Desert Air Force squadrons, suggests that Luftwaffe claim confirmation in North Africa was less stringent than it had been during the Battle of Britain.[1] Brown points out specific, documented examples of spurious verification, such as one "confirmation" by a Panzer commander, who merely saw a "cloud of dust", after an Allied plane passed behind a sand dune.[2] He also lists several dates on which there was significant, demonstrable over-claiming by JG27 pilots. For example, on 15 September, 1942, JG27 claimed 19 or 20 P-40s from No. 239 Wing (3 Sqn RAAF, 112 Sqn RAF and 450 Sqn RAAF). Marseille alone claimed seven kills in six minutes. However, Brown points out that records from the individual Allied squadrons show a total of five aircraft lost to enemy action that day and one to friendly AA fire. This analysis is supported by other authors.[3] Brown states: "clearly in the combat of 15 September, there could not have been seven accurate eyewitness reports, let alone twenty [emphasis in original], but Marseille's seven victory claims were accepted without question ... [and] other recognised Experten, Schröer, Homuth and von Lieres submitted a total of six further [accepted] claims between them."[4]
  1. ^ Russell Brown, 2000, p. 281
  2. ^ Brown 2000, p. 282
  3. ^ Christopher Shores & Hans Ring 1969, p.178.
  4. ^ Brown 2000, p. 282

By comparison, as this article points out, Caldwell and Jack Hamlyn were denied credit for the first air combat victory for the P-40 (on 6-6-41) was denied by the RAF, because the adversary was not actually seen to hit the ground/sea. Russell Brown reports a similar occurrence involving Bobby Gibbes, who shot down a Stuka near his own airfield, and was easily able to walk to the wreckage, but was not credited with the kill because the crash was not witnessed. Grant (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, I´m not disputing that they overclaimed, I´m merely rying to tell the readers of this article that overclaiming was not an exception, but normal. Like it or not, but don´t remove documented and relevant information. EDIT: And I got just another scource for overclaiming, R.D. Müller "Der Bombenkrieg" about a raid on Schweinfurt. He says the Americans claimed 288 fighters shot down. Actual german losses were 27. That´s a bit more 200% off, isn´t it? Markus Becker02 (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Although Grant raises some valid points, overclaiming was a factor for all airforces throughout WW 2. Although there are instances where overclaiming was deliberate and cynical (Bungay mentions in his book The Most Dangerous Enemy [about the Battle of Britain] that a well known (unnamed) German ace claimed two or three (?) RAF aircraft. His groundcrew couldn't help noticing that no ammunition had been expended for that day, even though the claims were allowed to stand: Kurt Welter's claims against Mosquitoes should be taken with a large dose of salt, and Russell Brown has serious reservations about the claims of "Bluey" Truscott and "Paddy" Finucane while flying Spitfire Vs on 452(RAAF) Squadron during 1942), most aircrew were genuine about their perceptions of what had happened during combat. How many German aircraft were claimed as destroyed because the pilot who had done the shooting had seen a cloud of black smoke and flames coming from the engine cowling, when he was actually seeing the smoke from the poor quality fuel and the extra exhaust flame as the German pilot hit full throttle and dived out of trouble? How easy would it be for the Intelligence Officer on the ground to tell the pilot that his claim was refused? Overclaiming usually happened through genuine human error. I see no legitimate reason why it shouldn't be mentioned in an article on air-combat. There's also a case for mentioning that legitimate claims were denied Minorhistorian (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Markus, any generalisation that "all sides overclaimed" is useless in a section on North Africa, because we have a citation that makes the specific allegation that JG 27 were significant overclaimers, compared to both German fighter pilots in general and to the DAF. That source provides substantial evidence for the allegation. If you can provide a credible citation saying that DAF verification was also poor, and providing substantial evidence, then include it by all means. Grant65 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So information on german overclaiming is relevant, but briefly mentioning the fact that such overclaiming occured anywhere is unnecessary overgeneralisation? Sorry , that way you give the reader a wrong impression.Markus Becker02 (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Desert Air Force pilots overclaimed to the same degree as JG27 pilots? This sentence ----> "However it should be noted that overclaiming was a common phenomenon among air forces during the war" IMO is just a weasel way of implying that the DAF may also have had sloppy verification procedures, a suggestion for which there is absolutely zero evidence. Grant (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what Minorhistorian or anybody else for that matter wrote? Overclaiming just happened, it wasn´t a german specialty. That´s what the sentence says.Markus Becker02 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you would agree it's absurd to suggest that every single WW2 pilot was identical in terms of the accuracy and verification of their claims. It's the same for units. Minorhistorian didn't say anything to suggest that the Desert Air Force, its member squadrons or pilots having a pattern of serious overclaiming. Neither has anyone else. Whereas we have good reason to believe that JG27 had a problem with verification, at least in North Africa. Is Lundstrom specifially talking about the DAF? If he is not then that quote is irrelevant. Grant (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You are pretty much on your own with the opinion mentioning overclaiming in general is not relevant. Anyway, this has been discussed at length.Markus Becker02 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right about one thing; the matter has been discussed at length many times in the past. Anyway, if it soothes your wounded patriotism to pretend that JG27 was no worse than DAF P-40 units, then leave your overgeneralised reference in. I can't guarantee that someone else won't remove it. Auf wiedersehen. Grant (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Great way of argumenting. Like you didn't blow the whole overclaiming thing out of proportion to put the DAF and its P-40s in a better light, trying desperately to relativate the fact that the LW performed better over Africa than the DAF. Or to put it with your words, "sooth your wounded patriotism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.77.137 (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kittyhawks over the Sands: the Canadians and RCAF Americans (book)[edit]

Is anyone able to get their hands on the following: Kittyhawks over the Sands: the Canadians and RCAF Americans by Michel Lavigne and James F. Edwards. Lavigne Aviation Publications, P.O. Box 222, Victoriaville, Qc, Canada, G6P 6S8, 2002 (384 pages)? There is a favourable review by Maj Robert Tate here. Sounds like it may have some valuable insights.Grant (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) PS I am trying to have a wikibreak, so there may be a delay in me replying. Cheers.

Combat performance with DAF[edit]

This section seems overly long and overly complex to me. Is anyone interested in cleaning it up?

Can we agree that the P-40 was roughly equal or slighly superior to the 109 at low altitude, and inferior at high altitude?

From the best I can determine between the two it came down to pilot skill / training, and squadron organization, in which the Luftwaffe seemed to generally have the edge, but throughout the entire desert war (including the American involvement) it appears that a good pilot remained very dangerous in a P-40 which seemed to have a bit of an edge at low altitude -if they were lucky or resourceful enough to figure out how to fly it on their own since they didnt' seem to get adequate training on them.

The P-40s also suffered from usually starting fights from a disadvantage due to the 109s greater effective ceiling. I'm not sure I understand the anecdote about the initial encounter with the Kittyhawk, an engagement in which neither side loses any planes seems actually inconclusive. The 109s had a climb / ceiling advantage, the Kittyhawks had a slight edge in dive and maneuverability, and they were equal in most other respects. The encounter described between the SAAF and the 109s may have encouraged nervous Luftwaffe pilots but the relative merits of the two types of aircraft seemed to have equaled out. Which seems typical from what I have read, which side did best seemed to depend on which side had the initial advantage.

Anyway I'd like to hear what other contributors to this article think.

I would also like to see stats, if anyone could find them, on kill / loss ratios of all the various RAF / DAF squadrons showing what types of aircraft they were flying. I believe No 3 and No 112 were among the best, if not the best scoring squadrons flying for the RAF, at least Nicky Barr made this claim. What would also really be nice are kill / loss ratos of Luftwaffe squadrons by enemy aircraft type. Which aircraft type gave the Luftwaffe the most trouble in North Africa and the Middle East?

Drifter bob (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I think a separate History of the P-40 article is probably the way to go, as this would allow for significant reduction of the whole "Operational history" section".
I think it is a true statement that the P-40 was roughly equal to the 109 at low to medium altitudes, and inferior at high altitudes. The better dive speed of the 'hawk was also significant, as it meant that P-40 pilots could quickly drag 109 and Macchi pilots down to their preferred altitude. The fact that the 109 had a poor turning circle was not that significant, as practically every other fighter in this period could out-turn it; the 109 pilots used tactics that negated this weakness in performance. (It seems to me that a hypothetical Axis bomber formation with Macchis on escort duties and 109s on top cover would have been a formidable combination.)
The anecdote about the Kittyhawk v 109 combat on July 15, 1942 is significant mostly in terms of it being the first P-40E combat — and the fact that both sides seem to have been aware of this.
I don't think there's much doubt that, in terms of raw stats, P-40s caused 109s the most trouble in the ME/NA theatres. The qualitative aspect is complicated by the appearance of Spitfires, but my feeling is that the Mk 5 Spits were compromised by tropicalisation and related performance problems. I haven't read that much about Spitfires in North Africa, but I do know that Mk 5 Spits had a lot of mechanical problems with the RAAF in Australia in 1943.
Grant (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The 109 did not have a poor turning circle in general. The Bf 109E suffered from this. The Bf 109F was better than the P-40 in this respect. Dapi89 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any evidence that the 109F could out-turn the P-40, esp. if you count flaps used for turning. I'd love toe see a citing of this 'fact'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.74.131 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read a book, I don't recall the title but I can veryfy in about a week. In this book, a Tuskegee Airman fron 99th FS, 33rd FG stated that the P-40K could outturn every Axis airplane in the MTO exept For the Macchi. He says that a P-40 veteran gave him and his squadron this tip and that he used it a lot to get in the tail of ennemy fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.169.205 (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

P-40 Survivors[edit]

Anyone interested, a P-40 survivors page is being created - lots and lots of references - see

[User:Davegnz/Curtiss P-40 Survivors] have not done the intro just yet - page is under construction but very surprising on just how many airworthy aircraft there actually are (a lot more then 19 cited) 209.212.28.50 (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Page is done and up - enjoy 209.212.28.50 (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

New Soviet P-40 interview Article[edit]

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/kulakov/index.htm

This guy flew P-39, P-40, and Spitfires. It gets into a lot of detail and discusses combat with Fw 190s, Me 109s, and compares P-40 all the above aircraft and others such as Yak 7.

I'm going to put this in as a link we should probably get some references from it too. There are also some excellent quotes.

Lengthy captions[edit]

I concur with BillZ on the over-long captions, especially in the Lead. I don't see why a pic og the Flying Tigers P-40 with shark-mouth needs a disclaimer saying where and by whom it was first used. That sort of explanation belongs in the text, not in a caption. If ther is some sort of duplication in the text or someting being copied twice, then fix that. But why does a pic of the AVG need a caption saying it was first used by the RAF? Find an RAF P-40 with a shark-mouth, and put someting in that cpation, but hopefully not as verbose. (But be sure to mention that USAF A-10s were shark-mouths now over deserts in Iraq.) I hope the edit-sparring can cease now! - BillCJ (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

New P-40 vs. Ki 43 book[edit]

New Osprey book, probably a lot of very useful information. I've pre-ordered it.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1846032954/ref=pe_5050_8319010_pe_snp_954 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drifter bob (talkcontribs) 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

P-40 flight video[edit]

The pilot (not sure who that is) here mentions US pilots preferring the P-40 over the P-51 in the CBI and specifcially mentions the erroneous portrayal of the P-40 in many books, including apparently by the pilot himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tEpAVBmLV0

Drifter bob (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Marseille's three bombers[edit]

"The leading "expert" in North Africa, Hans-Joachim Marseille, is believed to have destroyed only three bombers, all of them unescorted"... I don't understand why this sentence is in the article. I'm deleting it. If somebody wants it back in, please explain why. Binksternet (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a reference to the efficacy of DAF P-40 pilots in bomber escort duties, although that needs to be made clearer. Grant | Talk 10:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That was my fault. I took out the information Grant is referring to. I did this on the grounds that the Luftwaffe fighter pilots had a tendency to ignore Allied bombers and engage only Allied fighters. This caused much friction between Rommel and the Luftwaffe. It was not because of the "efficiency" ( I take it this what you meant) of the Allied fighter pilots! Though they did help! Dapi89 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that they were forced to enage the fighters. While Marseille is not representative of the whole Luftwaffe, its relative failure with regard to bombers was significant. Tedder's strategy revolved around ground attack/close air support and while this had terrible consequences for DAF fighter pilots, it was successful in terms of the impact on the Afrikakorps and the broader North African campaign. I guess we need a source that makes this point, rather than one that focuses on Marseille Grant | Talk 03:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this fits into the discussion since I didn't backtrack this entire thread. To my knowledge Adolf Galland was of the opinion in order to defeat an attacking bomber force you must first defeat its defensive perimeter of escorting fighters before being in a position to successfully attack and destroy the bomber formation. I believe that Galland and Göring repeatedly got into disputes over this issue. So to attack the fighters would be inline with Gallands thinking. I would concur in Grants opinion that the success in defending the bombers could be contributed to the DAF fighter pilots. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

True. But there is also a doctrinal element. So it is not entirely down to DAF pilots. Perhaps the fact that German pilots were also outnumbered should also be mentioned as a contributing factor. Dapi89 (talk) 08:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Overclaiming yet again[edit]

There has been a recent edit war over overclaiming. In looking at both sides of the issue I note that all airmen all over the world tended to overclaim in WW2 but at different ratios depending on theater, timing, training and military unit. I think we need a specifically North African source for overclaiming in this instance as it is focusing on local details, not greater generalities. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is such a dead horse! Just check the archives. For some its irrelevant generalities, for others is important background information. The history of the article shows both sides can not reach an agreement, so take it to the next level. Whoever that might be.Markus Becker02 (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Both sides agree on this: there was widespread overclaiming by all air combatants in WW2. We also agree that overclaiming varied from unit to unit, varied with nationality, varied by theater of operation and what stage the war was in.
What we are debating is whether the specific mention of JG27's overclaiming in North Africa should be followed by a generalization about all air combat. I don't think so. I think that a specific citation of DAF's ratio of overclaiming would properly close the paragraph and provide balance to the note about JG27. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Markus I think your being over sensitive. The citation is of place. These allegations were case specific. You have been asked to provide details on Allied overclaiming in North Africa and have failed to do so. The article makes it pretty clear that the issue is with JG 27 and its history in North Africa. It does not claim that Germans overclaimed in general, so stop interpreting this as a generalised insult against the German pilots only. If you are so concerned about this, why not start a series of articles on Air Force overclaiming during WW2?

Furthermore, I think you will find the consensus is against you Markus. I, for one, would "vote" in favour of its removal. Dapi89 (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's about a consensus "for" the article, not a consensus "against" an editor. Let's stay focused on what the reader will benefit from most. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
These allegations are case specific, but gives the reader a wrong impression if not put into context. The tenacity whith which a single sentence of this huge article is deleted is IMO revealing. Anyway, we are deadlocked. In case wikipedia has someone to make a decison in such cases, let him or her do so. Markus Becker02 (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Markus, there is no "wrong impression". I have never seen convincing suggestions of widespread Allied overclaiming in North Africa. Franz Kurowski does make the claim, but does not provide evidence and he is refuted -- at length and with evidence -- by Russell Brown.
There is also no "deadlock", you are the only person who supports inclusion of this citation. As you know, I have opposed this all along.
The "context" is the air war in North Africa. A book about the Pacific, while it may make general claims about WW2, is no authority on the peculiarities of the North African situation.
Grant | Talk 03:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Just check the archives, I´m neither the first nor the only one! Check the references, the second book is about the air war in Europe and I got a third one with examples from the Med(Greece 41). Like I said, this is a dead horse. End of discussion, until someone brings up something new.Markus Becker02 (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The sentence about overclaiming in general is still too general. Multiple references don't help it fit into the paragraph. It doesn't belong where it is. What belongs there is a counterbalancing statement about DAF's own overclaiming (with ref) or a firm statement concluding that JG27's overclaiming was detrimental to the reputation of the P-40 in Africa (with ref). Binksternet (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Markus, you aren't making sense. What archives? As for your other references, the P-40 was not involved in the Greek campaign (Golla) and Der Bombenkrieg appears to be about the air war over Germany and Japan(?)

What do these authors (Lundstrom, Müller and Golla) say about British Commonwealth P-40 pilots? I think I already know the answer. Grant | Talk 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What part of putting into context don´t you get? German, US, British and Japanese overclaiming in different theathers and on different dates puts the otherwise misleading "200%"-statement into context, even if you don´t like. And you really want to tell us you don´t find the archived parts of this discussion page? This is getting too silly.Markus Becker02 (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe your missing the point. The context, Markus, is North Africa, and specifically the claims made against the P-40 by JG 27 pilots. Other campaigns on other European fronts (never mind different hemispheres) have nothing to do with North Africa. Generalisations do not do wikipedia any good whatsoever, every page needs to be specific. If you have case specific information on any Allied Air Force or unit that cites cases of overclaiming, over a specific front, at a specific time, then put it/them in the relevant article. You cannot put in a citation that has nothing to do with this theatre of operations or this aircraft on the basis of a claim that covers the enitire conflict indiscriminately. You have been asked for this at least twice. Dapi89 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Markus, you are implying that P-40 pilots in North Africa overclaimed because Allied pilots did in other theaters. Not good enough. You need a specific reference. Grant | Talk 00:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I have changed your text to a direct statement that P-40 pilots in North Africa were also accused of overclaiming, deleted the inappropriate references and added a "citation needed". This too will be deleted if you can't reference it. Your material amounted to innuendo, based on what happened in other theatres. This is not good enough for WP military history articles. Grant | Talk 03:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
And I have have removed it. You know very well that I never made a statement that accused P-40 pilots in North Africa of overclaiming. I told you so on your talk page, so don´t pretend I did. Your assesment that it is "innuendo" is IMO an excuse. Since you can´t dispute the facts and don´t get ahead by claiming the facts are not relevant you try this. Bad conduct of yours!Markus Becker02 (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No bad conduct and if you aren't making a statement about P-40 pilots in North Africa, then your material is irrelevant. Grant | Talk 01:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Grant, your standard line "it does not describe North Africa" does not fly here. I know you want to believe that DAF never overclaimed, even if all other Allied air units flying P-40's very much did so, but that is just not "good enough for WP military history project", so to speak. And why that silly claim about 325th FG shooting down 20 109's and Macchis is STILL in the article, even though it has been debunked dozens of times. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mikoyan, if the 325th FG claims have been "debunked" and you have good sources, why don't you fix that passage?

It is irrelevant to me because the 325th (unlike the 57th FG) was never part of the Desert Air Force; as I have always said it is the reputation of the DAF P-40s that have been the victim of German overclaiming, as documented by Russell Brown. He has also shown that DAF claims were scrupulous. Why do you not want to believe that? Furthermore, why do want to believe that the practices of every single air force in every theatre of WW2 were identical?

Anyway, we are discussing these matters at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40. You are welcome to join us. Grant | Talk 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not fix that passage (but I guess I will if you're okay with it now?) since last time it came up, all P-40 fanatics jumped me and claimed that such source is "dubious" because it is German. Apparently, German researcher is not good enough but unverified claims by P-40 pilots in heat of combat are. Anyway, regarding overclaiming, you have the whole logic backwards: overclaiming was de facto state of affairs within WW2 pilots, not an exception, and there is not one thing to suggest DAF was any different. Furthermore, you are too obsessed about whole claim accuracy idea. That is completely irrelevant to issue. P-40 did not get poor reputation because their enemies overclaimed, it got poor reputation because they were unable to wrestle air superiority from Luftwaffe (whether it was fault of the plane itself, though, is totally another issue). The fact is that LW, even when outnumbered, almost constantly dominated DAF and held air superiority. You make it sound like DAF and LW were trading equal blows, perhaps even DAF dominating, but Germans just lied about it. Nothing could be further away from the truth. And that is the central issue here raised by me and other posters. --Mikoyan21 (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I´d even say "it did not ger a poor reputation because they were unable to wrestle air superiority from Luftwaffe"! Why? The Med was a sideshow of the air war against Germany and even there the P-40 was just one of several allied fighters. I´m pretty certain the P-40 is a non-issue for most German military history buffs. However I could not help but notice American internet users are sometimes outright hostile towards this plane. Hard to believe they got this impression from JG27´s not super-correct claims. One must not forget the Americans used the P-40 too and mostly outside the Med. Individual pilots liked the plane, because it was got at what it could do, but commanders did not like it, because it could not do certain things like climbing fast, flying high or far. Especially in the Pacific Theatre of Operations US Generals requested P-38 and later P-47 and P-51, but were told they had to get along with P-39 and P-40. Take this, the superior performance of the P-51 and the publicity the Mustang get´s to this very day and IMO that´s the reason for the P-40 bad reputation. Ok, in Australia DAF and JG27 probably had a bigger impact, but the RAAF was just one of many P-40 users.Markus Becker02 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting opinions. But they are so much hot air when they don't have references. I have provided mine, why don't you do the same? Grant | Talk 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What about reading what he wrote? He told you he had a source and so-called "P-40 fanatics" proclaimed it was wrong becasue it was German.Markus Becker02 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It is high time to give this issue a rest here and go to the appropriate page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40 which you Markus Becker02 requested. Minorhistorian (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

To all editors involved recently in the editing of this article. Forgive me for being presumptuous, but could I suggest a "time out" wherein all parties take a break from editing this particular subject? My concern is that although the main issues began by being discussed amicably, there is now a bit of an "edge" that has developed in the exchanges that should be checked before a heated argument erupts. Go get a pizza and beer, and maybe come back to it in a few days. FWiW, my advice comes free, take it or leave it. Bzuk (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC).

Aside from removing Grant65´s latest defamatory statement I leave it for some time. Not that it will help as the history of this page shows, but I have already requested mediation.Markus Becker02 (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Deal with the issue, Markus. If you aren't making a point about P-40s then what place does your material have in the article? Grant | Talk 11:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
To whom it may concern. I left my opinion here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40[edit]

Hi, we've opened Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-08 Curtiss P-40 with me as the mediator and several specific contributors named as parties, but I'm happy to add other parties and/or receive some brief background comments from others. It seems that this issue might spill over into other pages and might have valid subject matter for a WP article. Who knows? Hopefully the process can be fairly painless and short. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Marseille citation[edit]

Markus, if the text reads "may have shot down as many 70 P-40s", we need a citation that says exactly that. Using one that includes his total claims of 101 does not say "may have shot down as many as 70 P-40s"!. The citation does not support the text. Using a website that lists his 101 claims and saying, "well in there, there must be about 70", is not legitimate. Do you see what I mean? It misrepresents the citation. Dapi89 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO a good example of bias. A non-POV way to fix this would have been to write HJM claimed 101 P-40 instead of just deleting it.Markus Becker02 (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop playing devils advocate. The text was misrepresented, as you well know Markus, and you put false information and a false citation back into the article. I have not displayed any bias toward any particular side, as you also know. You are going to have to change your attitude if you want people to take you seriously. Dapi89 (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. I suggest you take a long, hard look at the talk page archives on Marseille's page, and that of Erich Hartmann. You will see that I have added information that suggests their claims were wrongly attacked. With regard to Marseille's page, there is reason to believe kills claimed on 1 September 1942 were accurate.

I don't do bias. Dapi89 (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You had a source saying HJM shot down/got credit for/claimed 101 P-40s and a sentence saying he actually shot down round about 70. You removed documented information from the article instead of making a minor correction.Markus Becker02 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have just proved my points Markus. It was not a "minor" mistake. There was no 70 figure in the article, period. Like I said, you need to change your attitude. It is painfully obvious that you are in the wrong. All your doing is embarrasing yourself. Dapi89 (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was no 70 figure in the source, but a 101 figure and it never occured to you to change 70 into 101? Isn´t there some wiki-advice that says improving is preferable to removing?Markus Becker02 (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not when it is B.S, which it clearly was. Dapi89 (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So you think the source is not reliable? Why didn´t you say so in the first place ... and say why you got this impression?Markus Becker02 (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hallelujah! He has got it. What the hell do you think I have been saying Markus? I have been so unbelievably clear only the most ignorant could have missed it. I suggest you continue to read this thread over and over again until you have another epiphany. Dapi89 (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, insults weren´t and still aren´t a substitute for facts. If you think this source is not right, please show us your facts and make sure you express yourself in a way the average english speaking person can understand. In my dictionary "unreliable source" is not the same as "wrong numbers". In case you can´t do that and do it in a reasonably matter of fact way ... just shut up.Markus Becker02 (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If I might butt in; this kind of behaviour on these pages is unacceptable. If you cannot debate without resorting to personal attack might I suggest that you do so on your own talk pages - I have no problem with either of you but I and I imagine that the rest of the editors would prefer it if you would both cool down and think before you write. Cheers. Minorhistorian (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For the very last time: Markus your last post was completely contradictorary. My replies to you have been very basic, and if you still can't understand them, then that is your problem. Sources that contradict the information it is being used to support is, by definition, unreliable. For your own sake, think about what you are saying. Over and out. Dapi89 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Over and out it certainly is. You still provide no proof the source is not reliable, so all the trouble is about an editor who put a wrong number in the article. Something that is already corrected.Markus Becker02 (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Reputation of the P-40[edit]

Among non-experts the P-40 has a pretty bad reputation; something experts know is pretty undeserved. So I thought let’s make a collection of all material with highly negative statements about the P-40.

1.Wikipedia vie the website “Mustangs, Mustangs” http://www.mustangsmustangs.us/p-51/p51variants/ “We will begin in March 1940, when NAA's chief designer, Edgar Schmued was approached by NAA's President, Dutch Kindelberger and asked, "Ed, do we want to build P-40s here?" Well, Schmued had been long awaiting a question like this. "Well, Dutch, don't let us build an obsolete airplane, let's build a new one. We can design and build a better one."

2.„Curtiss Aircraft 1907 – 1947“ by P.M. Bowers: “the P-40 design was obsolete by European standards before the prototype ever flew.” (Oct. 38).

3.Something called the Truman Report, I could not find online.

Feel free to add more. Markus Becker02 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not as "obsolete" as a Hurricane, Stuka or Beaufort, which proved that "outdated" designs can be very useful, if they are used carefully and subject to modification, refitting and/or other improvements. Grant | Talk 10:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Don´t get me wrong. IMO Mr. Schmued´s assessment of the P-40 is utter nonsense, if he actually made it. I was told it´s from Ray Wagner's "Mustang Designer- Edgar Schmued and the P-51", page 51, but it´s not footnoted.Markus Becker02 (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Flying Tigers[edit]

I dug up some material. In "America´s 100,000" on page 241 F.H. Dean says the AVG "has shot down 286 airplanes, with 40 destroyed on the ground and over 200 probables." 12 P-40 have been lost in combat, 61 to other casues. "The Curtiss Hawk Fighters" by P. Shamburger and J. Christy, page 64 has the following numbers: 286 shot down, 240 destoyed on the ground, four AVG-pilots were killed by fighters, 6 by AAA, 3 in accidents, 3 by japanese bombing and 3 taken prisoner. Last but not least is P.M. Bowers with "Curtiss Aircraft 1907-1947", page 477. He confirms the 286 kills and 61 lost P-40 and says 12 pilots were lost in combat.Markus Becker02 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

P-40B or Tomahawk IIA fuel system protection??[edit]

Protection increased the weight of the P-40´s fuel system from 170lb(P-40), to 250lb(P-40B) and eventually to 425lb(P-40E). As you can see, the P-40B/Tomahawk IIA´s so called "externally self sealing" fuel tanks added just 83lb to weight the plane, but how good were the tanks in combat? According to my book just 240 planes were made, the 100 of the AVG look like the only ones used in combat for a prolonged periode of time. Anyone knowing how "flammable" the tanks were? "Bloody Shambles III" has some info on the AVG, but nothing this specific. Markus Becker02 (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Overclaiming[edit]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I have found an instance of DAF overclaiming. Members of No. 250 Squadron claimed 5 Bf 109s on the 11 December 1941, although the only German loss was Franz Elles. It seems this would be overclaiming of 500%! Dapi89 (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps the Germans under-reported their losses. - BillCJ (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. The combats took place over Allied held territory, so if there were more German losses, the Allies would have known about it. Russell Brown points to cases of Allied overclaiming in North Africa as well. I see this may become another "the dastardly Germans were the only ones that didn't play by the rules". So I'll leave it there. Dapi89 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken Dapi, and the kills claimed by 239 Wing (see the table in this article) seem optimistic... But one out of five it seems to me is easier to explain than 5 out of 20(?) As MisterBee can tell you, Brown lists many less dramatic examples of overclaiming by both sides. He quotes — and seems exercised by — Kurowski's silly comment about the "RAF" accepting claims on the basis that its pilots were "gentlemen", when the RAF, RAAF and SAAF units concerned seem to have had relatively rigorous confirmation procedures. Grant | Talk 10:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes Franz Kurowski made a stupid generalisation, but I guess in this instance he has been lent a litte authenticity. Yes I see 5/20 is worse. In both cases the number of wrecked aircraft could have been counted. Anyway, I think the article is sound as it is, and we can put this to rest. Dapi89 (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but this seems to me to be a case of "only the Allies falsified/overstated claims". At least that is how the first statement here was written, and that is was I was reacting to. It also seems more likely that both sides overstated or under-reported, which wasn't considered in the first statement either. I see this alot in other aircraft articles, so I may react when someone automatically assumes the German report is the correct one. I also see alot of research by Western authors who seem to think Nazi and communist government record of the period are reliable, while Allied reports could never be. Very odd, especially when one realizes that whistle-blowers in Allied countries are more likely to earn Nobel Prizes for those reporting it, while those telling the truth in the other countries are more likely to earn a Mauser or AK prize. It has nothing to do with "dastardly" Germans or Russians, but rather the trustworthiness of those governments' records of the time, where there were no voters or free press of anykind to be accountable to. - BillCJ (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well you have just misunderstood. In fact the initial posts about this are still here, if you follow them through you will see that I don't believe any of that nonsense at all. It is always consideration that both sides are untruthful when dealing with losses/kills, but we can't speculate, just accept it for what it is. It might just as well be right. I didn't assume that it was right either, I did say that the battle took place over Allied lines so German losses would be known to the Allies. I'm just pointing out, if it is acceptable to point to authors that use Allied loss records against German claims, then it is okay the other way around. I thought it would be an idea to provide an answer to a question Grant65 posed to MarkusBecker02 some time ago. Dapi89 (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I may be missing something here but did the Germans claim one lost pilot or one lost aircraft? The latter can be more problematic, an aircraft which is bailed out of, ruined or crash-lands and is written off still counts as a kill even if the pilot lives. The latter were not nearly as well documented as the former, especially since sometimes three wrecks might be used to put back together two airplanes etc. We have to be careful of this when comparing kill claims with reported losses. Drifter bob (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Germans records indicate one fighter lost with its pilot. The pilot in question was Franz Elles, and he was captured. Yet the RAF pilots were credited with five kills. This is also stated in Michel Lavingne's Kitty Hawks over the sands: The Canadians and the RCAF Americans. Your point is valid. But this loss rate (which then would have been most of the staffel) is highly unlikely. If it had happened it would have been recorded. I believe I am right in saying Caldwell shot down Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt who glided back to German lines with a destoyed radiator. It was not until after the war Caldwell was credited with the kill. Dapi89 (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm basically neutral on this debate, but I suspect that in many cases on both sides there tends to be an all too definitive conclusion reached on limited evidence. This is good evidence, and I'm not familiar with this specific incident but another major issue with this kind of research is, because one unit reported only one loss, does that also mean no other units which were operating in or near the area reported any losses (of aircraft or pilots)? I'm for all possible research, ultimately I'd like to see a really good database developed which could show as much as possible from the available data, what the operational losses were in a given theatre, and then compare that to claims on both sides. I think it would be very interesting.
And exceedingly difficult to do. You would also in the DAF for example have to also examine Italian records. From everything I have read over the years I am personally convinced that there was a great deal of overclaiming which happened on both sides but I don't understand the passion on either side to reach definitive conclusions on the ratios of claims to actual kills at this point. I think a lot more research needs to be done (and is being done) Drifter bob (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we all are. To answer your question; Jagdgeschwader 27 was the only German fighter wing in North Africa at this time. There is an article in relation to the subject; Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories. On the JG 27 article claims are evident. Major Robert Tate did a reasonable claim/kill table if I remember correctly. But you're right, this should be treated for each campaign, or at least attempted. It would be an enormous task and would, I think, prove difficult. If you are suggesting you would begin a database I would help out where I can! :) Dapi89 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it would be a huge project but seems like exactly the kind of project a structure like wikipedia is immesnely suitible for, lots of pepole from around the world can contribute whatever data they have which can be checked, verified, and gradually aggregated into a clear picture. I don't have the time or know where to start to start such a project either but I'd definitely be glad to help and I have a lot of data sources.
As for JG 27 and their losses or lack thereof vs RAF claims, again you also have to also look at Italian fighters since MC.202 and Bf 109 don't look that dissimilar from a distance of say, more than 200 yards.
Overall I have to say I'm disappointed by how biased the discussion of Luftwaffe vs. RAF / USAAF claims seem to still be. This P40 article which I've been working for several years now to make into an accurate source of information is still full of PoV bickering. After all the time we have wasted arguing about kill claims, the current secion on the Palm Sunday Massacre reads like German wartime propaganda. Why does everybody have to get so invested and take sides on a particular aircraft or air force so personally? The great thing about Wikipedia has been to debunk some of the myths like that the P39 was only used for ground attack or that the P40 was an unmaneuverable second rate fighter whose only characteristics were it's "rugged construction". Why don't we all take a breath, and make a sincere effort to determine the reality of what happened between the P40 and the Me 109 in North Africa. Not all the Germans overclaimed by 6 to 1, and not every German pilot was Joachim Marseilles either. The reality is probably going to turn out to be more interesting to all of us than the wartime propaganda, lets use this article to move ourselves forward toward a clearer understanding of the data.

Palm Sunday Massacre[edit]

Currently this part of the article reads as if the Palm Sunday Massacre was a German victory. I'm tired of the bickering, we need to start is to look at the Palm Sunday Massacre and try to find out how many planes were shot down by which other type on either side, I'm going to see if I can find records maybe we can hash it out here and rewrite that section so it is an accurate reflection of the event, neither Allied nor German propaganda. Drifter bob (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is disengenuous to imply, as the article currently does, that the small force of Me 109s actually shot down the 6 allied aircraft that were lost. They were actually very likely shot down by defensive fire from the 51 Ju 52s which were destroyed. Attacking bombers, even antiquated ones like Ju 52s is extremely dangerous and usually resulted in at least some damage to the attacking fighter, especially if the attack was pressed. With that huge number of Ju 52s destroyed one would expect to lose several fighters, I'm not sure of the actual ratio historically against the Ju 52 but it is usually high against any multi engined bomber. It's also important to point out the obvious fact that most of the US fighters were dealing with the Ju 52s, enough to destroy over 50 of them which would alone require a significant proportion of the ammunition they carried. Only some allied fighters actually engaged the Me 109s so the claim that they were outnumbered 6 or 8-1 is more than a bit exxagerated.

Bottom line we can speculate forever without ever convincing anyone on either side of this endless debate. What we need to do is find data and settle the issue once and for all which we should be able to come cloe to doing for this one battle at least.

I found this article which is an interesting personal anecdote from a German Fighter pilot about the Palm Sunday Massacre. http://aviationartstore.com/palm_sunday_massacre.htm

If this article is correct the Germans lost 51 bombers and 8 fighters, for 59 aircraft in total, compared to Allied claims of 68 - 88 fighters. That is a range from 86%- 67% kill claiming accuracy which is quite good by WW II standards. I would encourage anyone who can to post stats with sources to resolve this Drifter bob (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


The article claims the use of a FW 187 in the MTO and shot down on 5th of march 1943. I have never heard of that happening. Only three FW 187 A-0s were built and they were never used in the MTO. If the article has something as basic as that wrong, I doubt the rest as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.121.139 (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Editorial balance in the Combat performance section[edit]

How best can we achieve a good editorial balance in the Combat performance section where the P-40 is compared to its foes? The P-40 came up against the Bf 109 many times in North Africa, so why do we have so many entries discussing the MC.202? My feeling is that we have these because the two aircraft have been evaluated as more nearly equivalent than other types, but how much description of the two combatants is required to give the reader a proper scope? Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand the question, because P-40s faced Macchi fighters frequently in North Africa and Italy. Obviously not as frequently as the Bf 109, because that was the only single-engined fighter used by the Luftwaffe in North Africa, but probably almost as much as P-40s faced either the Ki-43 or Zero, in the Pacific. Grant | Talk 07:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely giving undue weight to one type over others. NAd this seems to be a problem on several other aircraft articles, all with material being added by the same user. - BillCJ (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The P-40 was a top-heavy 1.200 hp fighter. Too heavy, very strong, but not so good in air combats. Even so, much was due to the pilot. P-40 had an heavy firepower, an excellent sturdiness, good handling. But it was a 3.800 kg aircraft with 1.200 hp, while Me 109F had 1.300 hp with 2.500 kg, Macchi 1.100 hp with 3 t. It had much conseguences in the flight. P-40 was a valid striker, however.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not forgetting that the mighty P-40N first edition (only 400) was capable of 609 kmh at 3,100 m, that is atleast on pair with Bf-109G and FW-190, and surely superior to Spit Mk V and MC.202s. It's a pity that soon these fighter were one time more 'overloaded' and slow down almost 100 kmh. In any case, no P-40 was never a really good climbing fighter and no P-40s was never good at high altitudes. But not even Bf-109 and Macchi 202/205 were even capable to flight almost 2,500 km or hold 600+ kg weaponry, an impressive result.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
2,500 km? I doubt that any P-40 had that range. P-51 did that. Lastdingo (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
No, P-40s were really capable to flight even more than 1,500 miles or 2,400 km, ex P-40F and K. Don't forget they had a really great fuel amount. One of the thing that wondered US flyers was the short range of Spitfire, no wonder why. J.Baugher writes even this: Range was 340 miles with a 500-pound bomb underneath the fuselage. Three drop tanks promised a ferry range of up to 3100 miles at 198 mph. So, without tanks the P-40s were capable of 750 miles, with one 1,000 miles, and even over 3,000 with 3 tanks. Maybe this was not so pratic, but it's impressive. In any case, the P-40 had really an impressive endurance.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Worth adding as an external website?[edit]

I found these reports and photos archived by NASA http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?N=0&Ntk=all&Ntx=mode%20matchall&Ntt=curtiss%20p-40. Is this worth adding to the External Links? This might also need to be checked by another user to ensure the link works. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

two-stage supercharger[edit]

"The P-40's lack of a two-stage supercharger made it inferior to Luftwaffe fighters, like the Messerschmitt Bf 109 or the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, in high-altitude combat and it was rarely used in operations in Northwest Europe." It wasn't the lack of a two-stage supercharger that was the problem. Such superchargers were introduced only in mid-42 by the British and weren't in use in the Luftwaffe till late 44. Equivalent Luftwaffe systems (GM-1 injection) weren't used much in Fw190A (which had poor high altitude performance as well) and still rarely in Bf109 till 44. The problem was the lack of a good supercharger at all. Therefore my proposal: Replace "two-stage" with "good". Lastdingo (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

To get things in context the Army Air Corps USAAF did not intend their fighters to be used for high altitude combat, which is one reason why the Allison used a single-stage supercharger rated for low altitude. For this purpose this supercharger was ideal - in context it was a "good" supercharger, because it performed reliably in the role for which it was designed. It was not the fault of the fighter, nor was it the fault of the engine designers - the problem lay with the AAC and USAAF envisaging fighters as being useful ground support aircraft ahead of being capable of footing it on equal terms with fighters designed as fighters. In short, there is nothing wrong with the sentence as is. Minorhistorian (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
It is, because it's irrelevant whether the USAAF though that the supercharger was fine when it wasn't. Get off that ridiculous U.S.-centric thinking. WW2 was a global fighter competition, not a U.S. fighter competition. It was performing much worse than the one-stage superchargers used in early Merlins or in DB601 or DB605. Those engines (and their one-stage superchargers) also proved that it didn't take a two-stage supercharger to compete (obviously, because they had none except late Merlins). The sentence is badly misleading because it suggests that a two-stage supercharger was the only wa of achieving better altitude performance when it wasn't. Both a better one-stage supercharger (with an additional gear, for example) and injection systems (like German GM-1, for example) were enough to compete. As I already wrote; the Germans used no two-stage superchargers in 99.9% of their fighters - only a handful of Ta152H had one (Jumo213E). A two-stage supercharger was OBVIOUSLY not the only way to competitiveness as suggested by the sentenceLastdingo (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Starting in 1934, Fighter Project Officer Lieutenant Benjamin S. Kelsey, and his boss Colonel Oliver P. Echols, chief engineer of the Material Division, struggled against the Bomber Mafia in pre-war USAAC to get things like drop tanks on fighters and heavier armament to intercept bombers. They were unable to get this in the normal manner; the bomber mafia didn't see that their bombers would not be self-defending over enemy airspace, and they didn't want any sideshow to take away from their vision of skies darkened with huge numbers of bombers. Kelsey ceded the battle over the P-40's supercharger but performed an end-run to get his way by sending out two requests for turbo-supercharged fighters in February 1937, Circular Proposals X-608 and X-609, which both used the term "interceptor" instead of "pursuit" or "fighter". The new word was not bogged down by the ideas of the bomber guys, and Kelsey was free to specify armament that was double the previous limit, as well as turbo-superchargers. These two specs, one for single-engined planes and one for twin-engines, led to the supercharged XP-39 (which looked promising at first) and the very successful supercharged twin-engine P-38. Kelsey believed that the use of a turbo-supercharger was essential for altitude, and altitude was where the fight was going to be. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A "turbo"-supercharger is a different tool than what's meant with "two-stage supercharger". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercharger#Comparison_to_turbocharging Lastdingo (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying that the decision by USAAC higher-ups made the P-40 unable to compete at high altitude. It wasn't as much a technical problem that the U.S. couldn't solve but a policy issue that stopped anybody from solving it. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
If you don't mind could you please avoid phrases like "Get off that ridiculous U.S.-centric thinking." This is not needed in a discussion like this. As a matter of fact I do now see your point; perhaps a better wording would be ...lack of an efficient medium to high altitude rated supercharger...Minorhistorian (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
A two-stage, two-speed supercharger would have made very little difference to the P-40/Tomahawk/Kittyhawk, as the aircraft had no usable advantage over its main opposition in Europe and the Middle East, the Me 109. It wasn't manoeuvrable enough for an average pilot to fight a 109 in, and it wasn't fast enough to run away. This applied to the P-39 Airacobra as well. Although the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk was faster than a Hurricane, it couldn't out-turn a Me 109, which a Hurricane could, so the Hurricane was usable, the P-40 was less so. Increasing the power available at greater heights would have had some benefit in allowing it to operate at medium altitudes, but would not have made the P-40 any better against the 109. Against a Fw 190 the P-40 would have been slaughtered no matter what supercharging it had. The P-40 was 'rugged' and 'reliable' but that's about all. It WAS a second-rate fighter (as was the P-39), and the only first-rate land-based fighter the US produced during WW II was the P-51 Mustang, and that only became-so after the engine was changed, which the airframe was able to take advantage of. A first-rate fighter allows one to take on the opposition in ANY situation on something approaching equal terms, and the P40 and P-39 did not allow that. That's not to decry them, but they were NOT first-rate fighters - otherwise the RAF would have used them more than they did and the USAAF in the Middle East wouldn't have needed to use Spitfire Vs for a time. Pilot skill makes a big difference, but when one's life is at stake it's better to enter a fight knowing that the aircraft you're flying isn't placing you at a disadvantage over the opposition. Unfortunately the P40 and P-39 did not allow this, except perhaps for the inexperienced. A good pilot can adjust his tactics to allow for deficiencies in his/her aircraft, but the average pilot may not be so lucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.233 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The claim that the p-40 could not turn with the Bf-109 is ridiculous. Read the Russians account of doing just that. You should also read Saburo Sakai's account. Sakai's said that the P-40 was very dangerous to fight with the Zeros. Above 250 knots the Zero could not turn horizontally with the P-40. He said the P-40 was very dangerous at low altitude, the P-51 was dangerous at high altitude and the F4-U was dangerous at any altitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.40.19 (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW, the German claims for kills are probably more accurate than the RAF and USAAF ones, as Luftwaffe pilots were only credited with kills if there was a witness to the shooting down, or if wreckage was found that corroborated the kill. The Luftwaffe didn't rotate pilots to 'rest' them, so Lufwaffe pilots fought continuously on operations until they were wounded or killed. This is one for the reasons for the very high kill rates that some German pilots were able to score. Also, many got them on the Russian Front, where the opposition was often not up to Western European standards, at least in early part of the Great Patriotic War. In addition, many pilots had gained valuable experience flying in the Condor Legion during the fighting in Spain. This not resting pilots was counter-productive in the long run, as the experienced pilots were unable to pass-on their valuable knowledge to new pilots, so as the war progressed, the Luftwaffe was made up of a relatively few very good pilots, and the remainder who, in may cases, had difficulty in just controlling their aircraft. In contrast, both the RAF & USAAF rested their operational pilots after a certain number of operations or hours, whereupon the pilot would then often be posted as an instructor at a flying training school, where he could then pass-on any updated tactics he had learnt while flying on operations to new aircrew. This meant that UK/Commonwealth and US pilots were of a fairly uniform high-standard throughout the war, whereas the Germans ones were much more variable later on, further hindered by the lack of fuel available for training towards the end of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.58 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Much of this is pure speculation based on what facts? Can you verify any of your claims? The P-40 was not even tested with a Merlin 60 series engine so how can you or anyone else tell what effect this would have had on its performance? As for the rest of the detail about German claims - that belongs elsewhere, not here. BTW would you please at least sign your url? Minorhistorian (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is all completely ridiculous, for one thing P-40 easily out-turned Me 109, this was acknowledged numerous times by German, Italian, US, Russian, and British authors, and is referenced throughout the article. P-40 may not have been the best fighter of the war but there were no perfect fighter designs, they all had their flaws. Me 109s had extremely short range, locked ailerons in a dive, and had a poor turning radius. A6M's and Ki-43s had poor dive speed and poor overall speed. And etc. This comment is essentially an editorial from the point of view of someone who prefers the Me 109s and identifies with the German pilots, which is fine but irrelevant to this article. Lets try to keep it based on the facts, if the anonymous author of the above two paragraphs has any facts to back up his claim, add them to the article. Drifter bob (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The reason for US fighters having to use single-stage, single-speed mechanical superchargers was the USAAC´s long time love affair with the turbo-supercharger. While theoretically superior it was actually very expensive, very complicated and it took a very long time to perfect them. Nevertheless the USAAC/USAAF had so much convince in the turbo supercharger that they told Allison on several occasions not to waste time and money by developing altitude rated versions of the V-1710 because the turbo-supercharger would make altitude rating superfluous. Allison was more realistic, in fact they saw the need for an auxiliary(two-stage) supercharger as early as 1938. The first “two-stage” V-1710 was installed in the XP-39E, increasing the critical altitude to 22,400ft and the top speed to 386mph. By the way, I agree that the allegations of the P-40´s lack of manoeuvrability are nonsense. Markus Becker02 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
"Although the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk was faster than a Hurricane, it couldn't out-turn a Me 109, which a Hurricane could, so the Hurricane was usable, the P-40 was less so."
THIS IS INCORRECT. Read the references in the article. Pilot after pilot after pilot pointed out that the P-40 could out-turn an Me 109.
"Increasing the power available at greater heights would have had some benefit in allowing it to operate at medium altitudes, but would not have made the P-40 any better against the 109."
Again, this is an erroneous statement. Most of the pilots who flew P-40s (note particularly Clive Caldwell and almost all of the Soviet pilots who have been interviewed) considered the P-40 equal or superior to the Me 109 at low or medium altitude. If you have direct evidence to the contary please cite it.
"Against a Fw 190 the P-40 would have been slaughtered no matter what supercharging it had. The P-40 was 'rugged' and 'reliable' but that's about all."
This 'rugged and reliable' cliche is exactly the kind of falacy which this artiicl sought to correct.
"It WAS a second-rate fighter (as was the P-39), and the only first-rate land-based fighter the US produced during WW II was the P-51 Mustang, and that only became-so after the engine was changed, which the airframe was able to take advantage of. "

That is factually incorrect, it's actually a fantasy. There is little doubt that the F4U Corsair, P-47, late model P-38 and F6F Hellcat were very effective fighters by your criteria below (i.e. they were able to dominate the opposition in any type of combat). They also had better combat records than most Axis or Soviet types. Drifter bob (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"A first-rate fighter allows one to take on the opposition in ANY situation on something approaching equal terms, and the P40 and P-39 did not allow that. That's not to decry them, but they were NOT first-rate fighters - otherwise the RAF would have used them more than they did and the USAAF in the Middle East wouldn't have needed to use Spitfire Vs for a time. Pilot skill makes a big difference, but when one's life is at stake it's better to enter a fight knowing that the aircraft you're flying isn't placing you at a disadvantage over the opposition. Unfortunately the P40 and P-39 did not allow this, except perhaps for the inexperienced. A good pilot can adjust his tactics to allow for deficiencies in his/her aircraft, but the average pilot may not be so lucky."
The RAF used every P-40 they got, they used them in North Africa instead of Northern Europe because of the altitude restriction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.181.194 (talkcontribs)
LOL! - well if you HAD tried using Kittyhawks or Airacobras in the Battle of Britain you'd have ended up walking home. Or dead.
As you would have using Spitfires or Me 109s in the Pacific. In fact many people who flew Spitfires in the Pacific did end up dead due to their abyssmal range and certain other limitations. A fundamental reality of aircraft in WW II is that they all had limitations to their performance and tactical envelopes, some more than others. Spitfires also proved to be fairly useless on the Russian front, where P-40s did well and P-39s excelled. That is because different Theaters of war required different characteristics. What made the Bf 109 an excellent high altitude interceptor also made it a fairly useless escort fighter. There were always tradeoffs, it simply wasn't as simple as some people seem to need to pretend it was. The purpose of this article is to give clear data about the subject, which was this particular aircraft Drifter bob (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I just love the re-writing of history here on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.65.59 (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That is a rather ambigious comment, do you care to spell out your actual assertion if you have one? -DB Drifter bob (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

" A fundamental reality of aircraft in WW II is that they all had limitations to their performance and tactical envelopes, some more than others." Totally true, the P-40's were excellent in China-Bruma-India theater and the P-39 were one of the best airplanes used by Soviet Union during WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.169.205 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

James Curl[edit]

Moved from article, as it was becoming the object of an ongoing feud. "James G. "Whitey" Curl (pilot): USAAF (Lt. Col.), lead pilot of the famous 57th Fighter Group at the Palm Sunday Massacre, April 18, 1943 at Cape Bon Tunisia North Africa. Recipient of the British Distnguished Service Order (G.B.) for his role on Palm Sunday as well as the Distinguished Flying Cross(USA). He had 3 victories and some damaged on that day. DSO given to him by King George VI of Great Btitain. Commanded one of, if not the most, spectacular air engagements in US Air Force history that day. Highly decorated, flew 144 combat missions before being shot down at Nuermberg Germany in March, 1945 in a P-51 Mustang. Most probably an WWII "Ace"."

Sorry, I have to say I have never heard of this pilot. Three victories does not make an ace; is he listed anywhere as a prominent figure? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
Agree, even if independently notable, it was way too much info about him. Personally I'm dubious about the whole 'famous pilots' section anyway. To me it's a little like the listcruft we get in music articles for 'appearences in popular culture'. At the very least it should be restricted to names that qualify for a WP article in their own right. That said, since we have it I suppose I'd better add John Lloyd Waddy...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

DAF overclaiming[edit]

DAF had its share of overclaiming.Here are some of many examples from North Africa and Lebanon-Syria where there is a strong possibility optimistic claiming took place.

18 February 1941, Hurricanes from 3 RAAF Sqd claim 8 Ju-87 destroyed but only one Ju-87 was lost.

3 April 1941, Hurricanes from 3rd RAAF Sqd and 73 RAF Sqd engaged 8 Ju-87 escorted by 8 Bf-110. They claimed 5 Bf110 and 4 Ju-87 destroyed, 1 Ju87 probably destroyed and 3 Bf-110 and 2 Ju-87 damaged. Only one Bf110 and 2 Ju-87 were lost. http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/commonwealth_steege.htm

10 July 1941. Seven Tomahawks from 3rd RAAF Sqd claimed 5 of 5 engaged Dewotine destroyed. Only two Dewotine were lost and three returned to base. http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/commonwealth_turnbull.htm

22 April 1943, Large formation of Me-323 were intercepted by allied fighters and 25 were claimed destroyed. Actual losses of Me323 were between 14-17. http://stonebooks.com/archives/020407.shtml

Speak of overclaiming, the USAAF P-40 pilots in Dutch East Indies were very optimistic, probably less than 20 Japaneese aircraft were shoot down by them compared with their claim of 49. For a good account of the air war in the Dutch East Indies Bloody Shambles Vol.2 by Christopher Shores at al. 89.253.89.107 (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

War is confusing the last thing to think of when somebody is shooting at you is to make notes, all sides in war over claim not anything special about the DAF or the P-40 just the heat of battle. MilborneOne (talk) 10:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, this otherwise excellent Wiki article has (as so often happens) been hijacked and compromised by individuals looking to put a personal points of view. Overclaiming can be profitably discussed at the appropriate Wiki page (see 'fighter aces' and the like); please keep things civil guys! Harryurz (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Yeah well it is a problem when sentences like these appear in the article: "For example the 324th FG scored better than a 2:1 ratio in the MTO." It's not DAF in this case, but if this is in fact a 2:1 claim ratio it gives a wrong sense of accuracy to the reader, when in reality the ratio could be close to that figure or much worse. Whoever wrote that part should please add if that figure is cross checked with German and Italian losses or if it's only the claims by the unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.121.139 (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh...please read all of the lengthy previous discussions of this point. Of course the DAF overclaimed; name an air force in wartime that hasn't! The point here is the degree/proportion of overclaiming by Luftwaffe fighter units in N. Africa. As various authors have demonstrated, German fighter units in N. Africa had looser verification procedures than both Luftwaffe units elsewhere and the DAF.
This is relevant because Luftwaffe overclaiming in North Africa — accepted uncritically by authors like Kurowski — has affected the reputation of the P-40.
I might add that the allegations above of other agendas are insulting and go against WP:AGF. Grant | Talk 03:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
DAF had its share of overclaiming. Evidence, proof but not a surprise. Markus Becker02 (talk) 04:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article?[edit]

This article is very well written and very informative - perhaps it should be suggested as a featured article? 98.118.62.140 (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well it has plenty of detail but needs tidying. There are lots of short paragraphs that should be merged into others; the lead is probably too long and fragmented for FA (two or three decent-sized paras is the norm); most importantly there are not enough citations, even for the Military History B-Class assessment it currently holds -- for B-Class and above, every para needs at least one citation at the end (except the lead when all info there is cited in the body), as does every element of a list (like the one of notable pilots who've flown the type); finally all image licensing needs to be thoroughly checked. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead is too long[edit]

I could template the article saying the lead is too long but I think some constructive discussion initiated here on the talk page would be a more elegant strategy.

The manual of style is adamant that four paragraphs is the maximum size for a lead section. What should our four paragraphs say? What four themes? Binksternet (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Origins as a P-36, First use in US, abroad, Developments, Impact. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC).
How about these key points
    • an American fighter and ground attack aircraft
    • A modification of the previous Curtiss P-36 Hawk
    • It was used by the air forces of 28 nations, including those of most Allied powers during World War II, and remained in front line service until the end of the war.
    • third most-produced American fighter, after the P-51 and P-47; 13,738 built.
    • In service with other forces, models received the name Tomahawk and Kittyhawk.
    • poorer performance in high altitudes made it inferior to German fighters in the type of combat in Northwest Europe, but it was effective in North Africa, the Southwest Pacific and China. and slos used in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, Alaska and Italy.
    • first combat use with British Commonwealth in Middle East and North African campaigns
    • low cost kept it in production as a ground-attack fighter long after it was obsolete in as a fighter
GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Great stuff, guys. Let's see if others chime in. Binksternet (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm...four paragraphs...easy...done. Min✪rhist✪rianMTalk 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

performance differences illustrated in flight sims[edit]

I have read of MMO combat flight sims, particularly "Warbirds II," in which the P40 was used as a sort of generic substitute early-war fighter for historical scenarios back around 2005 as a stand-in for the Hawker Hurricane, Morane-Saulnier M.S.406, etc.

With what are (supposedly) very accurate flight models, it was discovered, much to the consternation of players for the Axis side, that the P40C, far from being an underpowered, sluggish "sacrificial lamb" that would handicap those who chose it, was indeed more than an even match for a Bf109E, at least below 12,000 feet. It had higher top speed, accelerated better, dove faster, was more stable in a dive, handled better at high speeds, rolled faster, and turned better. The only things the 109 had going for it in comparison were a slightly better climb rate and heavier armament. Apparently this was such a problem that it affected play balance, and convinced the game's creators to add additional early-war aircraft for that purpose.

Whether this is noteworthy enough to rate mention in the article I do not know, but it may illustrate two points.

1, this was a very underrated combat aircraft and one of the better designs available early in the war

2, US propaganda at the time spoke of Japanese fighter aircraft that could climb at a sustained 5,000 feet per minute (for those of you scratching your heads, an F80 "Shooting Star" jet fighter wasn't capable of that kind of performance a decade later) as an explanation for the mediocre performance of the US Army Air Corps in the Pacific early in the war; at a distance of some seventy years, it looks more like the problem was that Japanese fighter pilots, particularly naval aviators, were (in the aggregate) better trained, more skilled, and more aggressive than USAAC pilots were circa 1942. The F4F "Wildcat" naval fighter is likewise underrated for the same reasons, in my opinion. The situation had reversed by 1944, but this had as much to do with attrition among Japanese pilots as with higher-performance aircraft becoming available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes/additions by IP[edit]

Ah, guys, has anyone else checked the sources of recent wholesale changes and additions? The IP making those changes has been warned for copyvio on other aircraft articles and when I searched for a couple of slabs of phrasing in this article on the net I came up with multiple copies of precisely the same wording, or close paraphrasing. Examples:

  • "Its initial inadequacies, in the form of low firepower and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks or armor, were a consequence of mid-1930s US tactical concepts." -- This WP article
  • "Its initial inadequacies, in the form of low firepower and lack of self-sealing fuel tanks or armor, were a reflection of mid-'thirties USAAC requirements." -- p40warhawk.com
  • "Although the XP-40 could not match the performance, especially at altitude, of the turbosupercharged types it was less expensive and could reach quantity production fully a year ahead of the other machines" -- This WP article
  • "Although the XP-40 could not match the performance (especially at altitude) of the turbosupercharged types, it was less expensive and could reach quantity production fully a year ahead of the other machines." -- p40warhawk.com
  • "Forty Bf-109s surprised the checker-tails, engaging them at moderate altitude where the P-40 performed best." -- This WP article
  • "Forty Bf-109s surprised the checker-tails, engaging them at moderate altitude where the P-40 performed best." -- The Aviation Forum

Binksternet, I can see that you've altered some things that have been added but I see no alternative to reverting all changes by this IP, as it seems obvious that most or all of this new stuff has just been copied wholesale. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This same IP has altered Vought F4U Corsair, Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, Douglas SBD Dauntless, Curtiss SB2C Helldiver and a few other articles - if much of this material is copied and unsourced maybe it's time to put a block on this address before more damage is done? Min✪rhist✪rianMTalk 23:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would suggest reporting it at WP:AN/I. Sunray (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Done - any further comments can be made here. Min✪rhist✪rianMTalk 23:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Bang on. You beat me to it by seconds! Sunray (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this copyvio, Ian. Rolling back to before the IP arrived was the best response. I must admit that I have only fair to mediocre skill in the recognition of plagiarism. I would like to know if there is a good automated tool for discovering copyvio. Anyone? Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
It was really the other issues reported with the IP address that tipped me off -- the edits themselves looked deceptively reasonable except for so much unsourced data being added so quickly. The checker people use at FAC is called Copyscape... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyscape? That looks pretty good. I tried a Wikipedia article but the site said that it had reached the maximum number of free searches for Wikipedia this month. The alternative is to register a 'premium' account which I may do at some time in the future. A nickel per search is not so bad. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Famous Pilots[edit]

Surprised to see Squadron Leader Neville Frederick Duke DSO, OBE, DFC & Two Bars, AFC, FRAeS,Czech War Cross (11 January 1922 – 7 April 2007)was not included in Famous Pilots.

Given that he flew both Tomahawk and Kittyhawk variants in Western Desert, and surviced crashing twice in them including once being shot down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Duke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.116.230 (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress so you should not be surprised by stuff that is missing. If you have a reliable source that Duke was noted as a P-40 pilot then it can be added. Just being a famous pilot is not an inclusion criteria, crashing and being shotdown might not be that notable to the aircraft type. MilborneOne (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


Just a friendly suggestion: The Republic of China Air Force was not entirely an American Volunteer Group operation. To be sure, the contribution of the United States to the air campaign in the CBI was enormous but sacrifices of the Chinese in the defense of their own nation has been given short shrift for far too long. Several excellent English language treatments of this subject have been published. The ROC P-40 pilots included at least two aces neither of whom were mentioned in this citation. One hopes that among the authorities on this subject, someone would take on the challenge of representing this aspect of WWII history in the Wikipedia entry. 75.134.131.36 (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Andrew C. Chiu, Duluth, MN.