Talk:Curtiss P-40 Warhawk

Previous discussions archived here: Talk:Curtiss P-40/Archive 1.

combat flaps

There is a mistake , P-40 had indeed combat flaps! Please check this out and fix it !

It had flaps that could be lowered in combat, it didn't have automatic combat flaps of the type used in the N1K2 George, or IIRC the Ki43

Drifter Bob

---

Spitfire didn't have even combat flaps.P-36 and Bf-109 were the first figthers to incorporate combat flaps

Proposal to remove the NPOV dispute notice

I have finally addressed virtually all of the requested footnotes, having purchased four books I no longer had in my library to rely on for reference material. Unless someone can prove that one or more of the refernces cited are in error, I propose that the NPOV dispute notice be at least temporarily lifted.

The few remaining citation- requests which I did not address are of this type:

Other New Zealand P-40s are on display at the Royal New Zealand Air Force Museum in Christchurch and the Museum of Transport and Technology in Auckland. [citation needed]

which don't require answering IMO. There is also a claim that the P-40 was unpopular with some USAAF pilots and officials. Though i did not write this, I believe it is true ... but I don't feel the need to back it up with a reference. I think it should remain but it can be removed as far as I'm concerned if somebody still wants to contest it.

As for the writing, if you don't like the way the article is written by all means feel free to improve it. Trim it down, make it more elegant. All I ask is that you please do not remove sourced data which I and others have carefully researched unless you have some grounds to contest it, and in the latter case, please bring that up here for discussion first.

Drifter bob 17:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up this discussion

I'm wondering since the issues with the page have been resolved, perhaps some of the bickering back and forth between myself and - Emt147 Burninate should be removed from this page, since it's fairly irrelevant. At least trimmed to the point that some of the rhetoric is toned down? Or is that acceptable policy in Wikipedia?

209.30.130.107 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Edting and cleanup

The editing and cleanup work looks good guys, I think the article is much improved now and reads better. Thanks for the hard work and continued efforts.

Drifter bob 23:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's almost ready to be nominated for feature article status. My main suggestion would be that some of the operational history would be better in articles about the individual units (e.g. Desert Air Force and articles on the US fighter groups). What do others think? Grant65 | Talk

Hmmm.. seems like the DAF article has more of the usual P-40 cliche's

"Although the mainstay of the DAF, the P-40 Kittyhawk, was a highly successful ground attack aircraft, it was merely adequate when it came to air to air combat with the Aeronautica Militare Italiana. And when the German Luftwaffe arrived in the theatre, its Messerschmitt Bf-109s inflicted severe losses on the slower and less agile P-40s."

Also, wasn't it regia aeronautica during WW II?

I don't mind this idea in general but don't want to lose too much of that good data from the P-40 page. Do y'all still consider it grossly oversized? Some of the anecdotes I guess could go in the squadron articles and be linked to from the P-40 page...?

Are you joking about the feature article status or serious?

Drifter bob 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm serious. There is no better way to fix an article than to attempt to bring it up to feature status. Most of the references are now there, the lack of which is the main deficiency in most articles.

As for the DAF article...I know what you mean, I was attempting a major rewrite several hours ago, but managed to lose the whole lot. Argh. Grant65 | Talk 23:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

P-40 In Literature

A nice addition to the P-40 In Literature section might be the famous book "God Is My CoPilot" written by US Army Col. Robert L. Scott circa 1943. It is not some obscure religious tract like it might sound, and for the majority of the book (an autobiography of Scott's WWII years) we are told a number of true P-40 air/ground combat stories. Objections?

--chipdouglas

Go for it chip.

Cubdriver, didn't the AVG have a handful of some other planes, Seversky P-35's or something of that type? I seem to remember reading that.

DB

Unreferenced claim

Per some anon user:

This number of kills really don't match with that reported by Axis sources. In axis reports, the Italian pilots of the 51st Stormo, based in Sardinia, didn't saw action that day, the Germans of III./JG77 lost four Bf 109s with one pilot killed

Unreferenced claim disputing veracity of referenced material, pulled until a citation can be provided. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 17:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There are actually two similar claims by the 325 around the same time period.

Drifter Bob

Hi, dumb ass Q. In my ignorance, how do I add references in the footnote style - went to add a book and a couple of web sites as references for the RNZAF material, since someone wanted a source, but held off to do it in footnotes like the rst of the article. Winstonwolfe 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

German claims reference

Quote ; "However, recent research has suggested that German pilots in North Africa over-reported kills,[8] due in part to the German practice at the time of rewarding aces according to the number claimed" despite the fact the comment has no relevence to the P-40, this also is not a valid or verified fact; ALL fighter pilots overclaimed, not just the Luftwaffe in North africa, and as such should be removed. The link claiming validation for this statement is also NOT appropriate, as it is a book review and is therefore purely subjective. Can I suggest the above comment is removed? Harryurz 12:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment does have relevance to the P-40 in that air combat with the Germans in North Africa is the main sources of its reputation as an "inferior" aircaft. It is a big statement that "ALL" WW2 fighter pilots overclaimed. And the reviewer is not the first to make the point about the system of claims in the Luftwaffe and the practice of material rewards in direct proportion to the number of kills claimed. Such a system created incentive for German pilots to inflate claims and support each others' inflated claims for kills. I'm not aware of such a system in the Allied air forces during WW2, but I could be wrong. Grant65 | Talk 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The perception of the P-40 being an "inferior" aircraft originated from with the tactical use of the P-40 which led to the high losses to the Luftwaffe, . Whether the Luftwaffe overclaimed or not still has no relevence to the P-40 and any inherent design faults. The fact remians that given the nature of air combat overclaiming was the rule rather than the exception- the methods of kill verification were different for each combatent air force, evidence seems to suggest that if anything the Luftwaffe methods were more stringent than those employed by the Allies. Until the widespread use of camera guns post 1943-44 the Luftwaffe aces' 'scores' were generally more accurate than either the Soviet Air force, USAAF or the RAF. Harryurz 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If you can't grasp the connection between widespread perceptions about the P-40 and German kill claims, then you are either being obtuse or we have a significant communication problem. And you need to reference the claim that "Until the widespread use of camera guns post 1943-44 the Luftwaffe aces' 'scores' were generally more accurate..." Conventional wisdom says otherwise. Grant65 | Talk 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My concern with the article is the continued myth regarding Luftwaffe overclaiming; i.e. Marseille claimed 151 in North Africa and so MUST have falsified reports etc. It ought not really be discussed here perhaps someone can compile a new article? As for referencing Luftwaffe accuracy over Allied claim accuracy- try the RAF Fighter Command offensive over Europe 1941-42. RAF claims were 500% more than actual German losses ( they were fighting over occupied Europe after all)Thus Germans could verify theirs much more accuractly. The only exception was the Battle of Britain where Luftwaffe overclaimed by 300% - for exactly the same reason. Harryurz 09:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the Luftwaffe was the air force of a totalitarian dictatorship should be enough to cause its records to be taken less seriously than those of the Allies. And whether or not the RAF overclaimed in western Europe in 1941-42 is neither here nor there. Who says its a a myth that Luftwaffe pilots overclaimed? I have never seen any suggestion of serious, systematic overclaiming by Desert Air Force pilots; not so the Luftwaffe in North Africa. Have you? References please. Grant65 | Talk 09:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Its dangerous ground to assume the political leanings of a combatant nation should give any more or less validity to its military record. No, 'serious systematic' overclaiming did not take place by the DAF , neither by the Luftwaffe- I suggest your inferences abvoe also be referenced. As for overclaims, many books have been written where it is patently obvious that fighter pilots (of all nations) in all sincerity claimed nunbers of aircraft destroyed that in reality were not- My whole point is that the Luftwaffe claims researched stand up to scrutiny and are comparable to the Allies claims, if not slightly more accurate. All this should be in an article on its own rather than in the P-40 one. I will endevour to compile an new article and we can debate it there, as it is (Im' sure you will agree) an interesting subject!

References- I suggest a read of any of the Christopher Shores/Brian Cull series on the air war over Greece, Malta, Western Desert , and Sicily, published by Grub Street in the 1990's.Harryurz 10:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Inference? I'm not making any inferences --- the reference for my position is already in the article. Moreover it is, as you have alluded, the conventional wisdom. What is your specific reference (i.e. page number/http and/or actual quotation) stating that German pilots in North Africa did not inflate their claims?

The Third Reich was clearly morally corrupt at every level, including many junior officers, and it is regarded by many people as the most criminal regime in history. Reliance on its records, without careful cross-referencing is a dangerous practice. I'm not sure why anyone would want to censor a relatively mild critique of the Nazi military's records, espcially when it is relevant to the subject and comes from an article about the P-40 by a major in the USAF. Grant65 | Talk 12:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re specific references- I mention the whole series of Shores' books as evidence of how all fighter pilot's claims were often inflated, not specifically by the Luftwaffe in North africa. The corruptness of the Third Reich is not in issue. Reliance on ANY records without cross-referencing is a dangerous practice, I agree; this also applies to Allied records too. as for the original comment with the P-40 article, if the general consensus is to leave it in , so be it; its relevance is just my opinion as a published author. Harryurz 13:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

So, Grant, your real evidence that German air victories are less credible than Allied ones is the mere fact that they were, well, made by pilots from Nazi Germany, who you don't happen to like and who must therefor be liars. Great reasoning here. Unless you find real proof for your accusations I suggest you stop with that agenda because it doesn't suit a Wikipedia article. The only argument you have is the incentive thing of the "German method" which is still very far from being proof and is likely compensated for by the FACT that Germans didn't count any shared victories. Clyde Frog84.152.114.186 15:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Italian fighter manueverability

The term maneuverability can be hard to quantify, but I'd like to see some sources on the allegedly superior maneuverability of the Mc.200 and Mc.202 / 205 over the P-40. I know the 202 was marginally faster and the 205 considerably so, but I'd like to see more data comparing the types before I'll go along with this.... most key would be turn rates (instantanoues and sustained) at different speeds, roll rates (initial and sustained) at different speeds. Acceleration, handling etc. would also be good to know

Anecdotal evidence from actual pilots in theater would be almost as good.

Drifter Bob

---

If the IL-FB flight simulator is to believe, then Mc.202/205 were much worse in maneuvrability than the P-40, which was actually very good!Mc.202/205 in IL-2FB are very heavy in the controls,much worse than the Bf-109G.

Axis vs Allied kill claims in Sardania / Sicilian encounters with 325 FG

I removed this statement:

"The Axis reports apparently dispute these claims. According to them, the Italian pilots of 51st Stormo, based in Sardinia, did not see action that day. The Germans of III/JG 77, which had total strength of 23 aircraft, lost 4 Bf 109s with one pilot killed."

Until it is be sited. From what I understand this is contraversial. Also I believe 325 FG had two similar battles during roughly this same period, if anyone could provide some source material on this other than the 325 FG website it would be appreciated.

Drifter Bob

What happened to Footnote Five?

Does anyone know what happened to it (why it is blank) and can whoever broke it fix it

Drifter Bob

Axis vs. Allied kill claims II

I find it very annoying and POV that the article treats Allied kill claims as facts while German claims are treated as speculative. Like for example how "Caldwell *achieved* 22 victories" while Marseille "may gave shot down more than 70 P40s" and immediately mentions that those *may* be overclaimed ... while in reality the same *may* be true for Caldwell on an equal basis. This is point of view that doesn't belong here. Either treat both as speculative or both as fact.84.152.114.186 15:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)ClydeFrog

The statement regarding German pilots is referenced (a 2001 article by a USAF major). If you knows of a credible source which says that Desert Air Force pilots were frequently guilty of overclaiming, then that can be included, too. Grant65 | Talk 16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's based not an article written by a USAF major. Said major merely did a review of a book. Funnily enough the very same review also clearly states, that the book also says "that overclaiming occurred on both sides". You just happened to let that part out. Reading the above sections of this discussion page makes it pretty obvious why. I will change this article in time if you don't.84.152.80.101 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A book review is an article. Maj Tate says: "Although the Germans did have very successful pilots in North Africa, the author is able to compare some German claims to actual losses on several occasions, demonstrating the not-too-uncommon habit of German overclaiming. The author does this not to imply that German claims were widely distorted, admitting that overclaiming occurred on both sides, but to suggest that, on occasion, things were not as they necessarily seemed.[my emphasis]" To construe that as "overclaiming occurred on both sides" (as you have) is a misquotation and distortion of Tate. The point about German claims is relevant and in context when we are talking about the reputation of the P-40. Grant65 | Talk 23:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Misquoting and distorting is exactly what you did by only giving those sentences relevance that you thought suit your POV. Have you even read the book or did you base your argumentation on this book's review? From what it seems you merely searched for anything supporting your view of axis overclaiming and found this book, review which itself says that overclaiming happened on both sides and doesn't go into any detail or present any such thing as "supporting facts or evidence". So if you read that book you may want to enlighten me on what facts it presents on axis overclaiming and how these compare to the allies?

Even more you might want to take a look at this article:http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/hanstate.html Even the above mentioned Maj. Tate, known for being a Luftwaffe sceptic, estimates here that of Marseille's 158 claims "over 130 definite, indisputable victories" can be made. On what basis? I don't know. However that would still mean 82.3% accuracy which is by far above standard compared to an allied and axis overall overclaiming of about 2:1 each in the battle of Britain. So making Marseille look like an "overclaimer" in this article holds no ground and is inappropriate POV.84.152.113.52 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I read Brown's book several years ago, but I don't have a copy of it. The next time I am near a good library I will refresh my memory.

If the figure of 82.3% for Marseille is correct, then that is quite a poor result, relative to (e.g.) the high degree of accuracy/verifiability attributed to Richthofen. Of course Marseille was operating over enemy territory and in conditions which were generally more difficult than those experienced by Richthofen. Anyway, Marseille was not the only Luftwaffe pilot in North Africa and there is no indication that Tate's statements in his review of Brown are directed at Marseille.

Maybe it would be better to include the whole paragraph by Tate as a direct quotation in this article, at least until I can obtain some material from Brown's book. Grant65 | Talk 12:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Finnish Recon Fighter =

Whoever added this section, I'd be really really interested to know more about this aircraft, did it see combat? Did they score any kills with it? A source for this data would be great even if it's not in English —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.166.181.194 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

References formatting

As I understand it, the template ({{cite web|...) format is essentially required for FAs, so if they're changed from that format they'll probably just have to be changed back later. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 21:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be Wikipedia without yet another retarded tug-o-war, would it? :) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)