RNZAF P-40 Codes Matched to Serials

[davidd]

On 29th March 1944, SERVRON 14 was already at Green Island, but must have been in the act of setting up shop, had just two aircraft on strength - both SBD (Dauntless), one each -4 and -5. No squadrons seemed to have been assigned to SERVRON 14 at this stage. Headquarters of Marine Air Wing One was somewhat to the rear, at Guadalcanal at this time. I am intrigued by mentions of RNZAF aircraft at this point, cannot see why the Americans would have anything to do with them frankly, unless the New Zealand aircraft were forced to land at Green with damage, and the Marines took temporary custody of them until they could be recovered.
David D

[aircraftclocks]

MARSERRON 14 is how the unit is being abbreviated in the documents I am reading.

[Deleted]

This is a brilliant resource Dave, well Done!

Have any codes been unearthed for NZ3240?

[Dave Homewood]

If I have come across it I would have added it to the list.

[Deleted]

This great photo popped up on Facebook (as a colourisation by Daniel Rarity/Rarity Colour) with the source given as Asisbiz:
91 Torokina Asisbiz via Daniel Rarity by Zac Yates, on Flickr

So. Which P-40N was coded 91 at Torokina?

[Dave Homewood]

If I knew that Zac it would be on my list. There are several photos around of aircraft where the code is visible but not the serial, and for now they remain a mystery. This is a well known photo in that category.

[davidd]

That photo is definitely from an RNZAF official negative. The image was used in one of the Official War History Branch "Episodes" series, titled "They bombed Rabaul" (from memory), although cannot locate specific reference at the moment. Always intrigued by what looks like a rather large and impressive building just below the tail of the aircraft, but that is almost certainly nothing of the sort - but what could it be? Looks a bit like a crudely-built wind-break to me, which seems unlikely. All suggestions welcome. Presuming the sea and beach is located out of sight beyond those palm trees. Torokina strip comprised just one runway, separated from a similar-length parallel taxiway by a fairly deep drainage ditch. With flaps at that angle, presume this aircraft is landing - would any more knowledgeable person care to comment on this?

David D

[Dave Homewood]

Could it be the cinema screen seen from the rear? Not sure how close to the strip the Torokina outdoor cinema was.

Or a water or fuel tank perhaps?

[markrogers]

The P-40 is on a landing approach by the look of it, full flaps being deployed. Normally they're fully retracted for take off. I've not seen that photo before, and yes the P-40s at Torokina had nose codes that had no relation to their serials.

[Antonio]

This photo was first published in 1949 in the booklet: The Assualt On Rabaul
Captioned: Kittyhawk, Landing, Bougainville.

[Dave Homewood]

Well the caption is wrong, it is a Warhawk. Clearly a later model P-40N.

[Dave Homewood]

Looking at that structure and comparing it with the size of the tent also in the background it is massive.

[Antonio]

Feb 5, 2022 12:36:36 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Well the caption is wrong, it is a Warhawk. Clearly a later model P-40N.

Yep
But it shows the thinking that existed in (at least some circles) in the War History Branch of the Department of Internal Affairs ot their advisors.
J.M.S. Ross was, of course, the author

[Dave Homewood]

Yes indeed. And he had served in Europe, attached to the RAF, who of course called all models of P-40 from the P-40D onwards the Kittyhawk, The RNZAF however differed, and called our P-40E's and P-40K's "Kittyhawks", and our P-40M's and P-40N's were known as "Warhawks".

[davidd]

Dave, I don't think that most of the air force (even the engineer officers) were particularly concerned with aircraft PR names in those days, although you are technically correct to call out their error. My dad was on Bougainville and he said that "everybody" simply referred to them (generically) as Kittyhawks, or Warhawks, or simply as P-40s, seemingly dependent on what they were told by other airmen the first time they laid their eyes on one. I doubt (but could be wrong) that anybody would get into a fight over aviation nomenclature in those days. However, staff officers in Wellington tried to educate the great unwashed that all personnel should learn to differentiate P-40s as either "Kittyhawks" (P-40Es) or "Warhawks" (all those that were not P-40Es), but I imagine that the airmen took not a lot of notice to these instructions. Engineer officers, with full access to the tech manuals, would use the USAAF designations, which were much more useful, when comparing one P-40 with another, with useful tables which included the USAAF serial numbers and model designation. Senior technical NCOs would also have access to these publications, although I have always imagined that the officers kept them locked up in their office cabinets! All the P-40 models between D's and N's were very similar (with exception of the V-1650-powered ones, one of which was shipped accidentally to us) and main differences were almost invisible apart from the extension to the rear fuselage of later models and the introduction of the "cut-down" area behind the pilot's seat to improve rear visibility. Other less obvious differences included the model of the V-1710 engine fitted, some instrument re-arrangements, plus such things as strengthened ailerons, larger main wheels, flared exhaust pipes and introduction of the air cleaner filters just aft of the spinners (with clearly visible "breathing" holes!) Also some slight changes to the "quarter-lights" aft of the windscreen, and changes in radios and aerials fitted.


The particular document outlining the above policy was Air Department Order (ADO) No. A 191/43 dated 7th July 1943, and the heading was "Designation of American Aircraft."

"1) In future, aircraft of American manufacture will be referred to by names in all operational and policy signals or reports. When it is necessary in order to avoid confusion, to quote the American code number (sic), it is to be preceded by the name. This is particularly important when referring to Ventura aircraft as some of these are the U. S. Army version and some the U. S. Navy version of the same type. Such aircraft will always be referred to as Ventura (B-34) or Ventura (PV-1) as appropriate.

2) The names of aircraft in service in the South Pacific are as follows:" (etc, etc.)

Among the list of names referred to directly above were the "P40 Mark E" (which I would refer to as a P-40E, taking my lead from USAAF publications) to be referred to as the Kittyhawk.

After this appeared the "P40 Mk. F, K, M, N", which were to be referred to as the Warhawk. And yes, this is another error - the RNZAF did receive a Packard V-1650-powered P-40, but this was a very early "L" model, not a P-40F, although the engine fitted to both types was the same.

An improved version of this list was promulgated under ADO No. A 228/43 of 11th August 1943, which included Mark numbers for the Hudsons, and suffix model letters after basic US designations for greater accuracy of this information (instead of the rather crude P-40 Mark F, etc.)

[Dave Homewood]

Well many of the pilots certainly knew the difference and took pains to differentiate between them, because many logbooks I have read list Kittyhawk (or K-hawk) next to the serial in their logbook if it was a P-40E or P-40K, and they noted Warhawk (or W-hawk) next to the P-40M and P-40N serials. I have seen this in countless logbooks. And there is plenty of squadron documentation mentioning Warhawks for the later models.

I am not trying to start an argument, only state facts as they were at the time. I guess some in the RNZAF were diligent and others did not care about the details. It's a bit like someone flying a Consul and calling it an Oxford though.

[curtiss]

Just to add some confusion to this topic, I have a section of RNZAF P40N-5 (or later) rear cockpit decking that has a "Kittyhawk" water slide transfer on it. Some of the RAAF N series aircraft also had the Kittyhawk transfer.

The P40N maintenance manual ( 01-25CN-2) which covers the N-1 to N-20 , has the title " Army model P40N series, British model Kittyhawk IV airplanes". So, in some cases Curtiss also referred to Warhawks as Kittyhawks.

Again, not an argument, just statement of facts.

[Mustang51]

Curtiss, You are correct in stating that 'Curtiss' referred to the aircraft as Kittyhawk IV in technical manuals but....there's always a but....that is what the British Official Designation was of all the P-40 line except the earlier Tomahawks. The Yank PR referred to the later aircraft certainly as Warhawks, to the the USAAF they were all known as the P-40. If the RNZAF called them Kittyhawks for the earlier models and Warhawks to the later then that is a local differentiation. The fact that the Ns were referred to in log books as W'hawk or Warhawk must mean that there was such a differentiation. It would be interesting to see (Dave get out the books here), if a pilot who flew both models in his service referred to the Es as K'hawks and the Ns as W'hawks in his logbook. The redoubtable Peter M Bowers in "Curtiss Aircraft 1907 - 1947" includes the official British Kittyhawk designation Mk.I - IV as well as the P-40 designation in its various sub-types. I may have missed it but I could not see any reference by him in his treatise to "Warhawk"

[Dave Homewood]

Feb 5, 2022 16:39:43 GMT 12 Mustang51 said:

It would be interesting to see (Dave get out the books here), if a pilot who flew both models in his service referred to the Es as K'hawks and the Ns as W'hawks in his logbook.

Yes that certainly did happen in some cases. I have seen it, particularly pilots at the OTUs where a mix of all models were flown.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of them wrote Kittyhawk in the earlier war period and seemed to switch once they got to the Pacific to simply write "P-40" or some were more specific with "P-40M" or whatever model it was. I would have to have a dig to find examples where both Kittyhawk and Warhawk were used. None of the ones on this laptop have that, they all seem to go Kittyhawk in their earlier service and switch to P-40 later. But I have seen a few examples with both words on the same page as they jumped from one model to the other. I'll keep an eye out and when I see one next, will post it here.

[Deleted]

I'd always assumed the RNZAF called the lot of them Kittyhawks so I've done the same (or P-40), so this has been an interesting and illuminating discussion!