Tomahawk so unloved?

[kfz]

To follow on from Andy's fantastic picture why where the Tomahawk. warhawks so unloved.

They tick all the right boxes. The Alison engine of 1000 hp was pretty good for its day. It manners where impecable, its high speed handling superb, it was solid, Well armed, it wide undercarridge track suitable for rough fields. It performance on paper was at least as good as other fighters. Available in huge numbers and served everywhere!

Yet they where unloved. Only 19 remain in anything like flying condition.

Classic case of good on paper but bobbins out in field. Why?

Kev

[Gage]

I don't know much about em' to be honest. Should have stuck a Merlin in them?!





:So Sorry Gage hit the wrong button, havent really edited your post, its eactly as is: Kev

[Drew5233]

I was under the impression their role was replaced by the P-51

[kfz]

They did put a merlin in it, but by then I t was too late I guess.

[Slipdigit]

It was a good plane and served well. It outfought the Japanese in China and served well in the desert war.

[adamcotton]

It IS a much maligned fighter. Apparently, low down it was very fast and handled superbly, being particularly sensitive on the ailerons. However, it had the un-supercharged version of the Allison engine, which meant high up its performance fell off considerably, and in the middle war years high altitude performance in a fighter was everything. So it was eclipsed by the Spitfire, Mustang and Thunderbolt which, even when the fighting came lower later in the war, could still out perform the old P-40. Sad, but true!

[Drew5233]

Chinese soldier guarding line of American P-40 fighter planes, painted w. shark-face emblem of "Fighting Tigers," at flying field somewhere in China, during WWII. 1942.

[phylo_roadking]

I've always had the opinion it got "caught put" by some unfortunate timing and never got to prove itself. When Britain got its 1st Tomahawk Mk1s...the Hawk81A-1s to a French contract... it would have been a fine period aircraft - look what Poland did against Me110s and 109s with their PZL parasol fighters!...except it just came with certain built-in issues that the RAF couldn't get on with, like a lack of self-sealing tanks, incompatible HF radios (no GCI), etc.. So that meant the Mk1s were judged unsuitable for day-fighter squadrons despite its relatively decent performance - and were relegated to low-level tactical recce and army co-op duties...where arguably a lack of self-sealing tanks would make then even MORE vulnerable to AA !!! Still, seven UK based RAF squadrons converted to them, and two RCAF sqns in the UK.

Gradually these were replaced in these squadrons by the MkIs and MkIIbs with armour, sealing tanks, British radios and .303 brownings...but it meant that the Tomahawk had already been "institutionalised" as a ground-attack/low-level aircraft by the time they started flying armed recce "Rhubards" across the Channel...and thus as more MkIIs arived, 300 of them, they were sent to the RAF, SAAF and RAAF in the Midle East to fulfill the SAME role!

There were gradual improvements in the perceived "problem" areas through the war. The Hawk 87...the "Kittyhawk" Mk1/P-40D with its Allison V-1710-39 went a considerable way towards correcting the lack of altitude performance. It was ordered by the British Purchasing Commission in May 1940...but by the time it started to arrive was transferred DIRECT to RAF and Commonwealth squadrons in the Middle East - and were followed to that location AND role by all the rest of the British Kittyhawks.

In the end Britain ended up with a whopping 28% of the entire production of the Hawk 81/82 family...but was "damned by faint praise" - sturdy workhorses never get a glowing rep LOL - and so never managed to break out of the role it had got itself shunted into so damned early in its RAF career. And meanwhile...all the more "glamorous" times were getting all THEiR gradual performance improvements too, so they remained "one step ahead".

It simply didn't have the performance to "overpower" a fighter opponent; it would get kills against Bf109s in the Desert and Zeros in the Far East of course....but NOT through any actual virtue of the Warhawk/Tomahawk/Kittyhawk itself - more by the tactics used flying them. And that's not something that people eulogise over...

[Slipdigit]

Originally Posted by phylo_roadking

It simply didn't have the performance to "overpower" a fighter opponent; it could get kills against Bf109s and Zeros in the Far East of course....but NOT through any actual virtue of the Warhawk/Tomahawk/Kittyhawk itself - more by the tactics used flying them. And that's not something that people eulogise over...

It was that factor that allowed it to enjoy a large kill ratio disparity over Japanese fighter in China. Chennault had the men of the American Volunteer Group (AVG) climb above the Japanese and then fly through them, making great effort to not get involved in a turning dogfight. They were to use the P-40's great diving rate to break off contact, get out of range, gain height and dive back through the Japanese formation again.

Doing this, they shot down over 300 confirmed Japanese aircraft for less than than 15 or so pilots lost.

[phylo_roadking]

Jeff - that's all true...but then - it was the AVG that got the glory, not their planes Their P-40s would have been COMPLETELY invisible to the public if it hadn't been for the distinctive paint job - that hid a worse double chin than mine, and overall looks only a mother, etc.!

It's a bit like the RAF's Hurricanes; now, and during the war, people could always name PILOTS who'd made their mark in a Hurricane - Bader, Tuck etc...but as an aircraft it was the Spitfire grabbed the headlines LOL