# Brits loved the P-39!



## gjs238 (Jun 9, 2010)

Here's the proof:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4ppL1hsNuI_


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 9, 2010)

Best take Pathe Newsreel clips with a pinch of salt
Talking up the war effort was their secondary role, imagine a WWII release that went something along the lines of "Oh my God! Look what those damn Yankees have sold us! No altitude performance and the range of a frisbee! We're all gonna die!"

I mean, talking up the side-door entry method so that 'the pilot doesn't have to climb in' like it's some kind of advantage


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 9, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I mean, talking up the side-door entry method so that 'the pilot doesn't have to climb in' like it's some kind of advantage



The script was obviously written by a well-experienced marketing man. "Yes, madam, I appreciate that brown is not a very fashionable colour but see how it doesn't show the dirt" etc etc etc

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 9, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Best take Pathe Newsreel clips with a pinch of salt
> Talking up the war effort was their secondary role, imagine a WWII release that went something along the lines of "Oh my God! Look what those damn Yankees have sold us! No altitude performance and the range of a frisbee! We're all gonna die!"



LMAO  That was funny!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 9, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Best take Pathe Newsreel clips with a pinch of salt


 But it MUST be true!


----------



## Markus (Jun 9, 2010)

I got a question about the range. A P-39 carried 120 gal. of fuel internally. How much did a Spitfire carry? IIRC the ones from the BoB had only 80 to 90 gallons.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 9, 2010)

Markus said:


> I got a question about the range. A P-39 carried 120 gal. of fuel internally. How much did a Spitfire carry? IIRC the ones from the BoB had only 80 to 90 gallons.



Surely it's not how much you've got but how you use it?


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 9, 2010)

Markus said:


> I got a question about the range. A P-39 carried 120 gal. of fuel internally. How much did a Spitfire carry? IIRC the ones from the BoB had only 80 to 90 gallons.


Yes, but that's an American bird using American measures:

Airacobra - 120 US gallons
Spitfire Ia - 102 US gallons

Airacobra - 114 Imp gallons
Spitfire Ia - 85 Imp gallons

Pilots Notes for both aircraft reveal:

Spitfire Ia - Cruising Weak - 18,000ft - 56 gals/hr
Airacobra - Auto lean - 11,000ft - 68.2 gals/hr

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 9, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Spitfire Ia - Cruising Weak - 18,000ft - 56 gals/hr
> Airacobra - Auto lean - 11,000ft - 68.2 gals/hr




See? I was right for once!


----------



## Markus (Jun 9, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Yes, but that's an American bird using American measures:



Wow, you guys can´t even agree on how many milliliters a pint has!  
By the way, I´m supporting the Brits as their pint is larger. Cheers!


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 10, 2010)

Hmm
didn't do the maths on the Airacobra, just took Markus' figure and worked out the imperial measure. 

If I take the imperial figure from the pilots notes however, the Airacobra had room for 137 US gallons.

But if I take Markus' figure (120 US gallons) and work out the imperial measure, it's just barely 100 Imp gallons.

Conundrum


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2010)

What I like about the Pathe film is that when the Airacobra was shown to the press and the film taken, the aircraft had already been taken out of service.

The script writer these days would probably be a top political spin doctor

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Jun 10, 2010)

They was free. Just like P-40s, Sherman tanks, M3 light tanks, M7 SP artillery etc. 

If Britain and the Soviet Union had to pay for this stuff they might prefer their own equipment designs instead. 8)

Reactions: Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 10, 2010)

davebender, your post isn't factually correct. See link: 

UK to repay last of WWII debts to the US, Canada today [Archive] - MPACUK :: Muslim Discussion Forum

I apologize for a less authoritative link but I'm sure you can verify elsewhere. On the otherhand, the USSR .... 

MM


----------



## ccheese (Jun 10, 2010)

I liked the music ! Benny Goodman, "The King of Swing".....

Benny Goodman - The King of Swing

Charles


----------



## Glider (Jun 10, 2010)

davebender said:


> They was free. Just like P-40s, Sherman tanks, M3 light tanks, M7 SP artillery etc.
> 
> If Britain and the Soviet Union had to pay for this stuff they might prefer their own equipment designs instead. 8)



Cheeky Bugger

As for designs the Spit for the P40, Cromwell for Sherman, Armoured cars for M3 and Sexton for M7. I admit that we may not have had enough, but as designs these are a fair match.

Plus of course, we did pay for the kit


----------



## timshatz (Jun 10, 2010)

Glider said:


> Plus of course, we did pay for the kit



Only that which wasn't destroyed and then it was .03 on the dollar with a 60 year loan. 

The orignal subprime loan!


----------



## claidemore (Jun 10, 2010)

davebender said:


> They was free. Just like P-40s, Sherman tanks, M3 light tanks, M7 SP artillery etc.
> 
> If Britain and the Soviet Union had to pay for this stuff they might prefer their own equipment designs instead. 8)



I think there might be a few of their own designs that teh Soviets didn't mind using too much. T34 and IS2 tanks, 152mm/1937 gun/howitzer (Germans even used captured ones on Atlantic wall),1942/76.2 gun, Katyusha rocket launcher, PPSh 41 sub machine gun, IL2 attack plane, Tu2 light/medium bomber to name a few.

On the British side, Spitfires seemed to be well liked, Bren gun, Daimler scout cars, Canadian built Chevy trucks (British design specs), Cromwell tanks, SMLE rifle, QF 25-pdr gun, QF 17-pdr anti-tank gun, Mk II 3 inch mortar, PIAT anti-tank weapon, Mosquito, Lancaster, Typhoon, Tempest, Lysander and a bunch of naval stuff that I'm not really well versed on.

To be fair though, the Jeep was one US design that was well liked, Thompson sub-machine gun, Mustangs of any Mark, B17, Canso (PBY) and others. I don't believe any one nation had across the board supremacy in weapons design for WWII.

Economically, all the European nations came out of the war in poor shape, UK included. North America enjoyed a post war period of relative prosperity. 
That wiser and more gracious heads decided to forgive much of the lend/lease debt is commendable IMO,(the cause was just after all).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 10, 2010)

timshatz - I guess that's true too for the Beaufighters and Spits that the UK supplied the USAAF and the Mossies that Canada provided the USAAF and the airbase leases in Bermuda, Newfoundland and elsewhere. You got a hate on for the UK today  Please quote a source for your $.03 on the $ reference.

MM


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 10, 2010)

davebender said:


> They was free. Just like P-40s, Sherman tanks, M3 light tanks, M7 SP artillery...


...unsinkable aircraft carrier?

When you needed it, it was free - in both senses of the word. The other sense of the word was already paid for with the blood of RAF pilots; not many of whom were flying P-40s.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jun 10, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Only that which wasn't destroyed and then it was .03 on the dollar with a 60 year loan.
> 
> The orignal subprime loan!



IIRC the P-39s were ordered before Lend Lease was approved so the UK paid for the whole batch irrespective of what happened to it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 10, 2010)

... and then turned around and gave most of the P-39's (P-400's actually) to the Soviets. Before USA had worked out Soviet Lend Lease.

MM

Post Script: And let's be clear here - there'd have been no P-51 Mustang had British purchasing agents not gone to the US to talk to Curtiss and North American Aviation. I guess the long range bomber escorts of 1944 would have been Fischer Eagles.


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 10, 2010)

The Russians were happy to get them. 8)


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 10, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> I guess the long range bomber escorts of 1944 would have been Fischer Eagles.



I thought P-38 issues were being/had been resolved, but the transition to P-51's was already well under way/complete (?)

W/O P-51's, P-38's may have fulfilled the escort role in Europe.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 10, 2010)

Resolved ... sure. Freezing at 30,000'. I was being sarcastic about the Fischer Eagles  .... P-47M's would have just evolved faster.

MM


----------



## stasoid (Jun 10, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> The Russians were happy to get them. 8)



In 42' they were happy to get anything available, except maybe for the Harricanes that they often called "flying coffin".


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 10, 2010)

stasoid said:


> In 42' they were happy to get anything available, except maybe for the Harricanes that they often called "flying coffin".



If the stories are to be believed they called quite few aircraft/vehicles coffins of one type or another.

Weren't Lagg-3's "Varnished coffins"? and SU-76s "a coffin for 6 brothers"? 

there may have been more?


----------



## stasoid (Jun 10, 2010)

Lagg-3's reputation was similar to the Hurricane's.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2010)

timshatz said:


> Only that which wasn't destroyed and then it was .03 on the dollar with a 60 year loan.
> 
> The orignal subprime loan!



Economically the British did a fair bit to ensure that the USA had an aviation industry when Japan attacked. In 1938/39 European countries were buying almost anything that could fly and American companies such as Brewster, Bell, Martin, Grumman and Curtis borrowed huge sums of money to expand their production facilities to meet these orders.

With the totally unforeseen collapse of Europe to German forces, these companies were left with massive debts and no money coming in as the countries had fallen. The UK agreed to take up and pay for all these purchases whether or not they were in our plans to purchase them. If we hadn't, these companies would have been in serious trouble and in some cases would have gone bankrupt.
Either way without that infusion of cash the USA would have taken a lot longer to build up its production and who knows what would have happened.

It’s almost true to say that war in an economic battle. We spend a lot of time debating what would have happened if this plane/tank/gun/ship had been in this scenario or that. But at the end of the day it could be argued that Germany lost the war because it didn't have the economic might to achieve Hitler’s ambitions.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 11, 2010)

"... It’s almost true to say that war in an economic battle. We spend a lot of time debating what would have happened if this plane/tank/gun/ship had been in this scenario or that. But at the end of the day it could be argued that Germany lost the war because it didn't have the economic might to achieve Hitler’s ambitions."

This is absolutely the truth, Glider, .... and most of the time we forget it. 

MM


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 11, 2010)

Didn't Osama bin Laden state his goal was the collapse of the American economy?
Popular culture media seems to overlook this point for the most part.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 11, 2010)

MM, got this off Wiki but I heard it from other sources. 

"Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when the United States terminated Lend-Lease when the war ended on 2 September 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, a post-war loan Anglo-American loan further indebted the Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[8] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary, Ed Balls, formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support."

The total for US goods/finaces given to England during Lend Lease was somewhere around 30-35 billion pounds. 

The 10% Nominal Value would easily translate to 3% of List Price. The initial price was probably at full book, same as the US Govt was getting. The reason why Lend Lease was terminated in this manner was to do the essentially the same as the Marshall Plan had done with Western Europe without actually having Britain in the Marshall Plan (Hey, they were a major player on the winning side and the Marshall Plan was for the losers, for the most part). By selling the Lend Lease at scrap and putting a long term loan on it, England essentially got the same benefit as the rest of Europe. But, keep in mind, the Marshall plan even on the Continent, was never more that 15% of the economic output of the countries involved. Same, or less, could probably be said for England.


----------



## Glider (Jun 11, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> Didn't Osama bin Laden state his goal was the collapse of the American economy?
> Popular culture media seems to overlook this point for the most part.



You had better hope that he doesn't work out how to attack oil rigs!!


----------



## timshatz (Jun 11, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> timshatz - I guess that's true too for the Beaufighters and Spits that the UK supplied the USAAF and the Mossies that Canada provided the USAAF and the airbase leases in Bermuda, Newfoundland and elsewhere. You got a hate on for the UK today  Please quote a source for your $.03 on the $ reference.
> 
> MM



Nah, no hate. It was the way the world worked out in the 40s. The US took pretty much all the UK had of value in the early part of the war. Gold, Bases, Companies, Technical info and patents, you name it. Almost looted the Brits in the early part of the war. But Roosevelt was no fool. He knew there would come a point when the Brits had nothing left and then it was a case of the US supporting England or going it alone. Politically, the stuff England sent to the US before Lend Lease made it that much more easy to pass the law. Arguement was, "We've taken all they have to give and there's nothing left, if we don't step up now, the Nazis win. You want that?". 

Brits did a fair amount of reverse Lend Lease. Aircraft (Spitfire and Mossie), Ships (with crews, ASW Trawlers were working the US East Coast by May/April 1942), Technology (Cavity magnitron was the most famous-always get that mixed up with the Flux Capacitor). Quite often, the Brits came up with an idea, usually technical, and the US mass produced it. Radar is the most obvious. 

Ya' know, I have no idea where this thread is going anymore. I'm rambling...


----------



## renrich (Jun 11, 2010)

Sometimes, "Old Ugly" is better than "Old Nothing."


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 11, 2010)

stasoid said:


> In 42' they were happy to get anything available, except maybe for the Harricanes that they often called "flying coffin".



Technically, the Russians were happy to get good weapons but were not going to turn away even stuff they considered inferior to their home grown product. One uses what's at hand after all when one's homeland is at stake. The Russians however considered the Airacobra to be an excellent fighter and used them to great effect, being desirous of as many as the US would send them and continued to use the P-39 all the way to Berlin.

I'm not aware of them calling the Hurricane a coffin. True, they had a bit of a learning curve utilizing it due to the prevalence at the time of the I-16 and I-15bis.....planes requiring a very different style of flying.


----------



## Markus (Jun 12, 2010)

No wonder, the Russians did not get the P-39D from 1943 but the much improved N/Q versions: more hp, a higher speed, very little speed decrease above 15,000ft and generally more reliable. 

With regard to the Hurricane they seem to have understood, the Brits didn´t have a lot to spare themselfs.


----------



## stasoid (Jun 12, 2010)

Nikademus said:


> The Russians however considered the Airacobra to be an excellent fighter and used them to great effect, being desirous of as many as the US would send them and continued to use the P-39 all the way to Berlin.
> 
> I'm not aware of them calling the Hurricane a coffin. True, they had a bit of a learning curve utilizing it due to the prevalence at the time of the I-16 and I-15bis.....planes requiring a very different style of flying.



This could be subjective but I'm hearing this all the time: two worst fighters on the East were Lagg-3 and Hurricane.

I-16 was obsolete in 41' 42', true, but it earned its good reputation earlier in Spanish Civil War and Battle of Khalkin-Gol. 

I-15s were used mostly as groung attack ac in 41'.

In case of Pokryshkin, they put transitioning to La-7s on hold in 1944 due to a crash landing accident that killed one of his best friends Klubov (31p+19g kills), so they continued flying Airacobras till the end of the war.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 12, 2010)

stasoid said:


> In '42 they were happy to get anything available, except maybe for the Hurricanes that they often called "flying coffin"


The Hurricane was well and truly obsolete by June 1941, never mind 1942
both the Bf109F and the Fw190A completely outclassed it; the Soviets didn't hold it in high regard, citing it (quite rightly) as too slow and next to useless in the vertical against the latest Luftwaffe machines. I don't recall any mention of them calling it a 'flying coffin'. Kaberov voiced the same opinions given above but the Soviets would have done well to remember that a flying coffin is better than no flying coffin, however marginally; after provoking the Nazis for months, they were fast asleep on the day of Barbarossa, within two weeks they had no airforce and nothing to resupply it.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 12, 2010)

Thanks for that source timshatz ... , but you forgot Whittle's gas turbine to go along with the rest of the "looting" .

"... The Hurricane was well and truly obsolete by June 1941, never mind 1942". As an interceptor yes, Colin1, but as a ground attack plane with rockets not so much. It did yeoman service in N. Africa and I'm betting that the Russians would have had luck with it in that role but they had Sturmiviks.

MM


----------



## stasoid (Jun 12, 2010)

A ground attack plane needs a cannon. Hurricane had some rifle calibre machineguns. For ground attack Russians had Lagg-3s and I-16s with cannons and rocket launchers. What they needed in 1941 is a good fighter plane. Pilots didnt like Hurricane. Government didnt listen. P-40s and P-39s on the other hand were well respected and much appreciated airplanes on the East. Hurricane was a nonsense.


----------



## Waynos (Jun 12, 2010)

Depends which model was supplied to Russia, stasoid. OURS had 4 x20mm cannon, some of them had a pair of 40mm too.


----------



## stasoid (Jun 12, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Depends which model was supplied to Russia, stasoid. OURS had 4 x20mm cannon, some of them had a pair of 40mm too.



Those supplied through Murmansk and operating mostly in northern Russia had either eight or twelve wingmount 7.7mm machineguns. They were most likely IIA and IIB models. The Soviets made some attemts to re-equip them with cannons with not much success. Never heard of them having rocket launchers.

Those flying in Stalingrad area had original North African camouflage. What models they were, I dont know.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 12, 2010)

stasoid - as a "yabo" the mid-war Huricane had the same punch as a Typhoon - but not so powerful or fast.

MM


----------



## stasoid (Jun 12, 2010)

define mid-war please
By mid 1942 there was no Hurricanes left in Russia.
Hurricane in Russia was at times compared to Sturmovik for its size, weight and low speed and maneuverability, but it had no armour and no weapon compare to Il-2.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 13, 2010)

stasoid said:


> A ground attack plane needs a cannon. Hurricane had some rifle calibre machineguns


I'm pretty certain Kaberov mentioned the Soviet disdain for the machine guns, they retro-fitted their own cannons on arrival. I'll need to check, been a while since I read him.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 13, 2010)

Try Libia, Tunisia, Sicilly etc .... that mid-war. No Russians there but lots of Hurricanes. The evaluation of the Hurricane relies on other data besides the Russian. 

MM


----------



## stasoid (Jun 13, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> Try Libia, Tunisia, Sicilly etc .... that mid-war. No Russians there but lots of Hurricanes. The evaluation of the Hurricane relies on other data besides the Russian.
> 
> MM



Was it a good fighter then?
Or we're talking about its ground attack capabilities? A liquid cooling engine, no armour... still sounds like a suicide mission.


----------



## stasoid (Jun 13, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> I'm pretty certain Kaberov mentioned the Soviet disdain for the machine guns, they retro-fitted their own cannons on arrival. I'll need to check, been a while since I read him.



Yes, I read about this too. Russians installed two ShVAK cannons in each wing. Brits didnt like this idea of Russians altering the original design though.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 13, 2010)

Yes it was a good fighter for its time - but lets be clear - the Russians never faced an air superiority struggle similar to the B of B (other struggles, yes) Asking whether or not it was "suicidal" in the ground attack role is like asking if the Typhoon was, in a similar role -- sometimes, perhaps?  but so were Sturmoviks.

MM


----------



## claidemore (Jun 14, 2010)

stasoid said:


> Yes, I read about this too. Russians installed two ShVAK cannons in each wing. Brits didnt like this idea of Russians altering the original design though.



The British altered the original design several times themselves, propellers, armor, engines, armament (3 x .303, 12 x .303, 4 x 20mm, 2 x 40mm). I doubt they would care if the Soviets changed up the weapons on any of the Hurricanes they had. 
It would only make sense to change the guns to indigenous designs as nescessary. There would be more armorers trained for the ShKAS and ShVak and better availability of ammo, and simplified logistics of fewer types of ammo and parts. 
As a fighter the Hurricane was considerably more modern than the I-16, and fond remembrances of the Rata from Soviet pilots should be taken with a grain of salt. The Hurricane had better overall performance, much better radios, and the MkII and MkIIb had greater firpower then the most numerous I-16-10 and 18 and the IIC had more firepower than the I-16-17 and 24. 
The Soviets received and used approximately 2000 Hurricanes and the plane was even issued to a 'Guards' regiment defending Moscow in 1942.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 14, 2010)

double post, stupid interweb. lol


----------



## Timppa (Jun 15, 2010)

claidemore said:


> As a fighter the Hurricane was considerably more modern than the I-16, and fond remembrances of the Rata from Soviet pilots should be taken with a grain of salt. The Hurricane had better overall performance, much better radios, and the MkII and MkIIb had greater firpower then the most numerous I-16-10 and 18 and the IIC had more firepower than the I-16-17 and 24.



Then you must also take a grain of salt of the opinions of the Finnish pilots also:

"The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames. "
virtualpilots.fi: WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 15, 2010)

stasoid said:


> Brits didnt like this idea of Russians altering the original design though


Tend to agree with the sentiment expressed in post #51
These were obsolete, lend-lease consumables, I don't think the Brits were expecting to see any of them again.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 15, 2010)

Timppa said:


> Then you must also take a grain of salt of the opinions of the Finnish pilots also:
> 
> "The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames. "
> virtualpilots.fi: WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html



He also explains how to fight the even slower I-16 and I-153, and how to fight the faster types, Migs, Yaks, LaGGs etc. 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with regards to the Hurricane though?? Obviously the I-16 was more manueverable and may have been able to absorb more battle damage, but it was still a slower, older design that was trickier to fly and Hurricanes did in fact replace them in several Soviet units. 

As far as 'grains of salt', fond memories of the Hurricane from RAF pilots fall into the category as well, since pretty much any RAF pilot who transitioned to Spitfires, P40's or Mustangs was more than happy to do so.


----------



## Markus (Jun 15, 2010)

stasoid said:


> Was it a good fighter then?
> Or we're talking about its ground attack capabilities? A liquid cooling engine, no armour... still sounds like a suicide mission.



The Il-2/10 had liquid cooled inline engines, just like the P-40, P-39, Hawker Typhoon and yes the Hurricane too. As far as I can tell all were fine fighter-bombers.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 15, 2010)

Timppa said:


> Then you must also take a grain of salt of the opinions of the Finnish pilots also:
> 
> "The easiest one to shoot down of the enemy fighters is the Hurricane. It is totally helpless against us below 3,000 meters. It is slow and very clumsy and unmanoeuvrable. Whenever you meet a Hurricane, engage it in a turn-fight, where it is totally at our mercy. It is best to shoot this plane in the forward part of the fuselage when it almost immediately bursts into flames. "
> virtualpilots.fi: WW2History-CaptainWindsAirCombatTacticsLecture.html



Some other quotes:



> _Our fighters must battle against either slower *and more agile*, or faster and less nimble fighter units. The *first category nowadays includes the I-16, I-153, and at lower altitude, the Hurricane.*
> _





> _The Hurricane and Spitfire are slow and clumsy fighters at low altitudes. They seek dogfights at high altitudes (over 5,000 m.) where their characteristics are extremely good._



I'm afraid this evaluation is contradictory where the Hurricane is concerned.


----------



## stasoid (Jun 15, 2010)

Markus said:


> The Il-2/10 had liquid cooled inline engines, just like the P-40, P-39, Hawker Typhoon and yes the Hurricane too. As far as I can tell all were fine fighter-bombers.



Il-2's engine had armour protection underneath it. A Hurricane flying at the same altitude as Il-2 could be knocked out by a single bullet from a hand gun. Il-2 could withstand up to 200 hits

I-16 could afford loosing up to two of its cylinders (top ones) and still be able to return home.


----------



## Markus (Jun 15, 2010)

stasoid said:


> Il-2's engine had armour protection underneath it. A Hurricane flying at the same altitude as Il-2 could be knocked out by a single bullet from a hand gun. Il-2 could withstand up to 200 hits
> 
> I-16 could afford loosing up to two of its cylinders (top ones) and still be able to return home.



So what? She and others like her were still effective fighter-bombers. I guess that means the vulnerability of in-line engines was not as big in real life as it looked on paper. By the way, you can instantly killl a radial engine by hitting the oil cooler. That too seems to have happened not very often.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 15, 2010)

stasoid said:


> Il-2's engine had armour protection underneath it. A Hurricane flying at the same altitude as Il-2 could be knocked out by a single bullet from a hand gun. Il-2 could withstand up to 200 hits



The single bullet from a hand gun would have to hit in exactly the right place and given the speeds of a hand gun bullet and a fighter plane aiming the hand gun is such a problem that even hitting the airplane ANYWHERE is the same as winning the lottery.

Il-2 could withstand 200 hand guns hits?
Who figured that one out?


stasoid said:


> I-16 could afford loosing up to two of its cylinders (top ones) and still be able to return home.



How many times did this happen?
Once.
Twice.
Three times?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 15, 2010)

What's your point Stasoid ....

MM


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 16, 2010)

stasoid said:


> define mid-war please
> By mid 1942 there was no Hurricanes left in Russia.
> Hurricane in Russia was at times compared to Sturmovik for its size, weight and low speed and maneuverability, but it had no armour and no weapon compare to Il-2.



Hurricanes were in plentiful service with Soviet Aviation until early 1943. Hurricanes began to be phased out around mid/late 1942, as more powerful and better Soviet aircraft began to appear at the fronts. However, Hurricanes still served with Northern Fleet combat units around Karelia until early 1944, and served with training units for a little longer. 

For example, the 78th IAP fought with Hurricanes between late 1941 and October 1943, after which they replaced the aircraft with P-40s. The 27th IAP still operated Hurricanes, along with other older types, into 1944.


----------



## stasoid (Jun 16, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> What's your point Stasoid ....
> 
> MM



My point is that personal likes and dislikes dont always correlate with technical specs of an aircrafts. It sound like Hurricane's reputation on Eastern Front wasnt as good as it was on other theaters. On the other hand P-39 (see the title of this thread "Brits loved the P-39" ) first 200 lend-lease P-39s arrived to the USSR in Septenmber 1942 were British, came from England, used. Brits didnt like them so sent them to Russians.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 16, 2010)

"...Brits didnt like them so sent them to Russians..." 

It was more that the Brits had *no use *for them -- didn't have the high altitude performance that they needed or the range. Whereas whatever the Soviets *thought* of the Hurricane, the machine did OK in the early deployment (around Murmansk) flow by RAF pilots who were also familiarizing the Soviet pilots on them. The Soviets didn't much like the Spitfire either (according to some sources) but that had as much to do with the fuel quality requirements of the Merlin + the narrow track landing gear as it did the Spit as a fighter. But the Soviets kept on using Spitfires into 1947-48 if I'm not mistaken and they never said "no" to receiving them. 

Personally, I doubt if the Soviets would have much liked the Me-109 -) .

They LIKED the P-39 because they were the Bell Corporation's biggest customer and Bell istened to them .

MM





MM


----------



## riacrato (Jun 16, 2010)

Says you. The 109 was very likely the most feared fighter over the eastern front from 1941-43, when Soviet fighters caught up. I have read more than once how the Russians admired its ability to fight in the vertical.

_In my opinion, and I participated in 25 fights, best fighter of WWII was Me-109G2_ - Mikhailovich Mukhmediarov, pilot of 14th GvIAP


----------



## renrich (Jun 16, 2010)

Uhhhh, stasoid, the P47 was a pretty fair air to ground machine and had no cannon. The 50 BMG on that plane as well as others and on tanks and other AFVs was very effective against all but full grown tanks as well as light naval vessels.


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 16, 2010)

I'd say it was the other way around. They became Bell's biggest customer because they liked the P-39 so much.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 16, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> The Soviets didn't much like the Spitfire either (according to some sources) but that had as much to do with the fuel quality requirements of the Merlin + the narrow track landing gear as it did the Spit as a fighter. But the Soviets kept on using Spitfires into 1947-48 if I'm not mistaken and they never said "no" to receiving them.


The Soviet Tactical AF's (VVS) didn't think much of the Spitfire V, practically inferior to the P-39 as they saw it with both used in the same southern theater in 1943, given the main missions at hand. They found the Spitfire IX useful in air defense force (PVO) as interceptor due to its altitude capability, w/ the main potential target being high altitude recon a/c.

As usual a problem here is seeing the Spit and Hurricane through a special Brit-centric rose colored haze rather than their real records. The Hurricane was basically obsolete and not competitive with 109F and G as flown by typical German units of 1942, in Med just as much as Russia. We've discussed many times before the ups and downs (mainly downs) of the Hurricane v the Bf109E but it was consistently not competitive with the later 109 marks, so why would it be in Russia either? Similarly the Spit V, though certainly a higher performing plane than the Hurricane, had a mixed record in other theaters, and some of its other notable failures (eg. being dominated by Japanese fighters over Darwin i n 1943, didn't do as well as P-40's had in the same exact mission the year before against the same Japanese units) were also partly related to poor suitability to primitive conditions, a genuine drawback to a fighter if those were the conditions prevailing'. OTOH the Spit IX measured up better v its contemporaries than the V, and used in circumstances favorable to it was a very useful plane as the Soviets also found. Strip away the Hurri-Spit myth- legend and their records and reputations on East Front aren't particularly surprising or so far out of line with elsewhere.

Joe


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 16, 2010)

"... Brit-centric rose colored haze". I don't suffer from that and, am a longtime P-39 advocate .

Realistic post, JoeB.

MM


----------



## stasoid (Jun 17, 2010)

renrich said:


> Uhhhh, stasoid, the P47 was a pretty fair air to ground machine and had no cannon.



50 caliber on P-47 vs 7.7mm on Hurricane. P-47 was famous with its exceptionally rugged airframe + it had a radial engine vs liquid cooling on H. With over a 1000 kilos of bombs and 10 rockets P-47 can be compared to Il-2 rather Hurricane.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 17, 2010)

stasoid said:


> 50 caliber on P-47 vs 7.7mm on Hurricane. P-47 was famous with its exceptionally rugged airframe + it had a radial engine vs liquid cooling on H. With over a 1000 kilos of bombs and 10 rockets P-47 can be compared to Il-2 rather Hurricane.



The Hurricane was never the best fighter or ground attack aircraft, but I rather think you’re underselling its usefulness stasoid. It did the job in late 1941 through to mid/late 1942, when it was needed.

The Soviets got a hodgepodge of Hurricane types in the Lend Lease deliveries: Mk Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb, and IIc were all delivered in large numbers. 45 MK IID and 30 Mk IVs, fitted with 40 mm cannon, were also delivered in 1943/1944.

There was a mix of tropical and non-tropical fittings as well (in 2006 they dragged a Mk IIB trop out of lake near Murmansk). A lot of the early Hurricane deliveries to the Soviet Union were aircraft that had originally been earmarked for training units in Nth Africa, and were already painted in British desert camouflage. A little visible if you’re fighting above the snow in St Petersburg or Pskov.

Many of the early Hurricanes supplied to the Soviet Union were older Mk Is that had been partially or wholly refitted as Mk IIs. Often the airframes and engines had been canned out in RAF service, and then given a minimal once over and put on a freighter bound for the Nth Sea. Unfortunately, this rather affected their performance.

Another aspect affecting Hurricane performance (and later Spitfire performance) was Russian fuel. I believe Russian aviation fuels had an octane rating of 94, lower than the 100 standard used in the RAF after mid 1940.

To pep up performance and improve their armament in Soviet service, Hurricanes were often refitted with Soviet weapons. Most common this took the form of 2 ShVAK cannon and two UB 12.7 mm HMGs, or four UBs. Some squadrons did this as standard and I’ve read that more than 1,200 were retrofitted with Soviet armament in some in some form or another. 

Taking out the 12 .303s and replacing them with two cannon and two HMGs added about two thirds to the firepower of the aircraft, at the same time cutting the weight in the aircraft by close to 75kg. The only problem was a lack of ammunition. Only 100 12.7 mm/20 mm rounds would fit in the ammo bays (compared to 350 .303 rounds).

Other armament retrofits in Soviet service include two 20mm ShVAKS and two 7.62 mm ShKAS, four ShVAKS, and even four ShVAKS and two UBTs. Another common modification was to replace four .303s with two UBs, giving either 2 x 12.7 and 4 x .303 or 2 x 12.7 and 8 x .303.

Many Hurricanes in Soviet service were refitted with rocket rails (normally two in fighter units, six in sturmovik units). Bomb shackles were less common, but still used. At least 120 Hurricanes were refitted to handle 100 kg bombs and sent to light bomber units. 

By mid-1942 it was decided that the Hurricane could not compete as a fighter, so the aircraft were reassigned to PVO, training and sturmovik units. Some quick googling reveals that Soviet OOBs record 495 Hurricanes in service with PVO units on 01-Jul-1943 and 711 with PVO units in June 1944

There are some odds and sods as well, like 20 Hurricanes converted to two seaters for artillery spotting, some with rear firing LMGs on a flexible mount.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 17, 2010)

JoeB said:


> The Soviet Tactical AF's (VVS) didn't think much of the Spitfire V, practically inferior to the P-39 as they saw it with both used in the same southern theater in 1943, given the main missions at hand. They found the Spitfire IX useful in air defense force (PVO) as interceptor due to its altitude capability, w/ the main potential target being high altitude recon a/c.
> 
> As usual a problem here is seeing the Spit and Hurricane through a special Brit-centric rose colored haze rather than their real records. *The Hurricane was basically obsolete and not competitive with 109F and G as flown by typical German units of 1942, in Med just as much as Russia.* We've discussed many times before the ups and downs (mainly downs) of the Hurricane v the Bf109E but it was consistently not competitive with the later 109 marks, so why would it be in Russia either? Similarly the Spit V, though certainly a higher performing plane than the Hurricane, had a mixed record in other theaters, and some of its other notable failures (eg. being dominated by Japanese fighters over Darwin i n 1943,* didn't do as well as P-40's had in the same exact mission the year before against the same Japanese units*) were also partly related to poor suitability to primitive conditions, a genuine drawback to a fighter if those were the conditions prevailing'. OTOH the Spit IX measured up better v its contemporaries than the V, and used in circumstances favorable to it was a very useful plane as the Soviets also found. Strip away the Hurri-Spit myth- legend and their records and reputations on East Front aren't particularly surprising or so far out of line with elsewhere.
> 
> Joe



So tell us, which US or USSR fighters were competitive with the Me109f/g in 1942? What was the alternative to the Hurricane as an air superiority fighter against the Luftwaffe? What US or USSR fighter was superior to the Spitfire V in 1942? Wasn't the USAAF flying the Spitfire V in 1942-43? I wonder why they were using UK built fighters?

So over Darwin the P40s were intercepting at exactly the same altitude as the Spitfires?

I really wish you would do just a bit of basic research before coming out with these kinds of completely incorrect statements.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 17, 2010)

> *michaelmaltby*
> It was more that the Brits had *no use *for them -- didn't have the high altitude performance that they needed or the range.


But didn't they use Allison powered P-40 and Mustang?



> Whereas whatever the Soviets *thought* of the Hurricane, the machine did OK in the early deployment (around Murmansk) flow by RAF pilots who were also familiarizing the Soviet pilots on them.


Browsing german losses vs british/ soviet claims near Murmansk, i'm not sure that it was so OK. Probably no better results than in Malta against Munchenberg's JG 27, even i'm far from being persuaded about 100% reliability of german list losses. 




> The Soviets didn't much like the Spitfire either (according to some sources) but that had as much to do with the fuel quality requirements of the Merlin + the narrow track landing gear as it did the Spit as a fighter. But the Soviets kept on using Spitfires into 1947-48 if I'm not mistaken and they never said "no" to receiving them.


What sources? 




> Personally, I doubt if the Soviets would have much liked the Me-109 -) .


What soviets? I never heard about any disrespect from soviet side to that plane. Except maybe on very first variants in spain against I-16. At opposite even Pokrychkine that used one captured plane was very impressed by it's dynamic capabilities in it's* official *memories published at soviet union era.




> They LIKED the P-39 because they were the Bell Corporation's biggest customer and Bell istened to them .



Some good links

Interview with L.Kulakov

Spitfires over the Kuban

And the best

Conversations with N.Golodnikov

Not because it's an opinion between the others but because it's a very representative opinion for soviet *trained* pilots over Murmansk

Regards


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 17, 2010)

> *RCAFson *
> So tell us, which US or USSR fighters were competitive with the Me109f/g in 1942?


Yak-1,7,9 M105 PF, La-5F at low alts. The last one being more than a match to the 109G under 3000 m. Why?



> What was the alternative to the Hurricane as an air superiority fighter against the Luftwaffe?


 A Yak-1 with the Merlin XX engine: 665-670 km/h at rated alt. The 1934 th concieved Hurricane airframe was to big for it's power, just as the Fairey Battle. And if you turn the question other way? What soviet or US fighter was *more competitive *with the Me 109 than the Hurricane?



> What US or USSR fighter was superior to the Spitfire V in 1942?


*All of them *at low alts from soviet tests. The Spit V might have been be the king of the hill over 4-5000m, but they didn' give damm' of that, with justified reasons. Some Soviet and Normandie pilots virtualy never used secund stage blower on their Yaks, except on trainings...




> So over Darwin the P40s were intercepting at exactly the same altitude as the Spitfires?
> 
> I really wish you would do just a bit of basic research before coming out with these kinds of completely incorrect statements.



I don't know much about Darvin and JoeB and brit-centric roses, but his assertions about Spit's and Hurricane use in USSR are perfectly sustainted.




> _The Soviet Tactical AF's (VVS) didn't think much of the Spitfire V, practically inferior to the P-39 as they saw it with both used in the same southern theater in 1943, given the main missions at hand. They found the Spitfire IX useful in air defense force (PVO) as interceptor due to its altitude capability, w/ the main potential target being high altitude recon a/c._


100% right. The *soviet Spit V *was* not cometitive *at low altitude against soviet Yak, La-5 or P-39's. The IX was very much appreciated in turn in PVO units.




> _The Hurricane was basically obsolete and not competitive with 109F and G as flown by typical German units of 1942, in Med just as much as Russia._


Right.
Remember the LII-tests, canon armed Hurricane performed 412 km/h at SL, 496 at hight. This was less competitive than even old Polikarpov I-16 tip 18 variants, and even overhauled tip 5/10 were more appreciated by soviet pilots due to their superior manoeuvrability (the Hurricane was much slower and sluggish to control respunse and lost immediatly speed in verticals gaining less than 500m in a climbing turn for 700 to 1000 for I-16 variants, even if it was a good serial turner at horizontal plan).

Of course, there were a lot of I-152, I-153 fighters at time, and even if the I-16 tip -5 that had no equal to escape from the Me-109 gunsight, the question is what kind of planes was it able to hunting with 440 km/h speed at 2.7 km and less than 400 at 5 km, with two 7.62mm guns?

If less suited for dogfights, the Hurricane could at least catch bombers and make heavy damage, especially with 4 ShVAK canons. 

Regards


----------



## Markus (Jun 17, 2010)

VG-33 said:


> But didn't they use Allison powered P-40 and Mustang?



The former in the Med because it was better than the Hurricane and Spits were reserved for "use in the UK only" at that time. The Allison powered Mustangs were used for tactical recon IIRC.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 17, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> I really wish you would do just a bit of basic research before coming out with these kinds of completely incorrect statements.


For your own part
you might want to learn some basic courtesy before coming out with these kind of completely unnecessary statements


----------



## Glider (Jun 17, 2010)

I don't think that anyone would pretend that the Hurriacne was an equal match for the 109 in any version. Howeverto pretend that the Spit V wasn't a match for the 109F or russian fighters does fly in the face of the evidence. The Spit V didn't fail in the desert, Europe or in the Far East. 
Certainly it had a problem with the Zero's over Darwin which I would agree was a failure but even here the Spit V put a stop to the recce missions the Japanese had been undertaking at will. In Europe the Spit V was outclassed by the Fw 190 without a doubt, but not the 109F. I have never read of any concern of any RAF pilot going up against the 109 even the G which did have an advantage the difference wasn't significant.

This brings us back to the comparrison with the Russian Fighters. To compare the Spit V against the Lag 5 is a little unfair as the Lag 5 was brand new and entered service in the later part of 1942 as did the Spit IX. So if you want to compare the Lg 5 against a Spit choose the Spit IX.
The following are some quotes from Spitfires Over Kuban which I suggest everyone reads.

_Captain Sapozhnikov, a pilot of 57th GIAP, flew the Spitfire, and Captain Aleksandr Pokryshkin, commander of 1st Squadron, 16th GIAP, flew the Airacobra. A factory test pilot flew the LaGG. Here is how Pokryshkin describes this aerial combat in his memoirs:

The conditions for the battle were complicated: our “enemies” were to fly toward Sapozhnikov and me on unknown azimuths. Thus, even before the start of the fight in high-speed turns, they had favorable positions. But the bosses had decided, and we did not argue with them. We had to find a way out in the course of the fight.
The leadership arrived. I flew in the first pair. I gained the established altitude and by rocking my wings gave the command to initiate the fight in horizontal maneuvers. I energetically put my aircraft into a turning climb and, allowing the LaGG to approach to a dangerous distance, executed a sudden roll with decrease in altitude. The LaGG-3 passed by above me and I immediately set up on his tail and got him in my sight. No matter what way the LaGG turned, I kept him in my sight. Several minutes went by and the result was obvious.
Then we examined how the LaGG would handle itself in vertical maneuvers. I threw my aircraft into a steep dive and, having gained velocity, departed into a zoom. At the apex I placed my airplane on its wing. The LaGG was making a combat turn below me. It was relatively easy for me to catch him in the tail and fix him in my sight, parrying all attempts of this ‘enemy’ to avoid my attack.
Sapozhnikov also won his fight in turning and climbing, but fought to a draw in vertical maneuvers. After coming out of a dive, the LaGG-3 stayed close to me in a high-speed pass over the airfield, but the Spitfire, which had weaker diving capabilities, fell significantly behind us._

In other words the P39 and the SPit could take on in a dogfight, the Lagg 3 which was just entering service. Had this been at Altitude I have no doubt that the Spit V would have bested both the P39 and the Lagg 3.

_Here it should be noted that an encounter with the British aircraft was unexpected not only for the pilots of the neighboring regiment but also for the Luftwaffe pilots. They were quite familiar with this aircraft type, but none of them had expected to see it on the Eastern front. Here is how Gunther Rall recalls this episode.

I wrote a summary of the battle, in which I noted the appearance of the Spitfires on the Eastern front. My group commander asked me for the time being not to discuss what had happened. ‘Perhaps you were mistaken, Rall? All this will only alarm your comrades.’ I responded that it was more likely that tomorrow we would encounter a large number of Spitfires in our sector of the front._
Here the Germans are certainly concerned that they are going to be facing Spitfires


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 17, 2010)

Admitedly, the Germans were always concerned about facing Spitfires, such was the reputation of the plane. Kind of similar to Allied tank driver concerns that they might face Pz-VI's behind every bush. There was more than one situation, documented in books like Shores' coverage of the Med battlefields of "Spitfire snobbery" whereby German pilots downed by Hurricanes would insist that it must have been a Spit that brought them down. It was also interesting to note the German pilot reaction after the Spitfire began regularily deploying to the airfields of Malta. While extremely nervous at first, after a few combats the Germans settled down, realizing that, while more formidable a machine, the Spit could also be shot down just like any other plane. Psychology of the battlefield.

While i do agree that the Hurricane was outclassed by the mature varients of the Bf-109, one can never seperate the tactical/operational setup and the quality of the pilot training and pipeline from the equation. Under better situations, the Hurricane could be competetive. It even "won" one of it's Theater based matchups with the dreaded Messer from a stat point of view for what it's worth. 

With P-39's and Russia, always the focus tends to be on the environment whilst the reorganization and evolution of soviet tactics are either discounted or ignored.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 17, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> So tell us, which US or USSR fighters were competitive with the Me109f/g in 1942?


None, really, Yak-1B and early La-5 were close though.


RCAFson said:


> I wonder why they were using UK built fighters?


They used any fighters they could get. The Russians were flying any planes they had, even fixed landing gear biplane I-15's.


RCAFson said:


> Wasn't the USAAF flying the Spitfire V in 1942-43? I wonder why they were using UK built fighters?


Yes. At the time the USAAF also used any fighter planes they could get, and Spit V was not the worst choice.


RCAFson said:


> I really wish you would do just a bit of basic res before coming out with these kinds of completely incorrect statements.


You should do the the same.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 17, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> 1. So tell us, which US or USSR fighters were competitive with the Me109f/g in 1942? What was the alternative to the Hurricane as an air superiority fighter against the Luftwaffe? What US or USSR fighter was superior to the Spitfire V in 1942? Wasn't the USAAF flying the Spitfire V in 1942-43? I wonder why they were using UK built fighters?
> 
> 2. So over Darwin the P40s were intercepting at exactly the same altitude as the Spitfires?
> 
> 3. I really wish you would do just a bit of basic research before coming out with these kinds of completely incorrect statements.


3. last one first, you haven't specified any particular statement I made that was incorrect, or shown any contrary research. Obviously you don't like my post, but you have to do more than just say generally 'it's incorrect' for your rejoinder to have any credibility. 

1. As I stated, the Soviets thought that the US Lend Lease fighters, as well as the newer of their own types, were superior in the circumstances to the Hurricane. And, we can see from contemporary combat results in other theaters that the Hurricane was less a match for 109F/G by 1942 than other Allied fighters including P-40 types; Brit/CW generally agreed this. So the Soviet opinion is not very surprising.

2. The same Japanese units performing the same missions from the same bases against the same targets. The implication of your question is counter logical. The Spitfire V all else equal had superior altitude performance to the P-40E. If flying at high altitude was a solution, then the Japanese would have been quite stupid to employ high altitude as a way or counter Spitfires but not have thought of it as a way to counter P-40's. The more complicated answer is that Spitfires (as again somewhat parallel with Russian situation) were useful intercepting high altitude Japanese recon planes, Type 100 Hq Recon Planes, aka 'Dinah'. However in combats with bombers escorted by Zeroes the Spitfire didn't do any better v the bombers and considerably worse v the Zeroes than the P-40's had in the previous year's campaign in a virtually identical situation. One explanation often offered for this is the Spitfire's poor ability to hold onto its theoretical performance in primitive conditions (and separate from its combat results, the Spitfires suffered an alarmingly high wastage rate in accidents and mechanical failures operating in northern Australia conditions). But this is the whole point of comparing the two situations to begin with: a major reason the Soviet Tactical AF's found the Spitfire V practically inferior to the P-39 in 1943 on their southern front was one of the reasons the Spitfire V arguably proved practically inferior to the P-40 defending Australia, lack of tolerance for primitive conditions. So again the Soviet experience and opinion shouldn't be that shocking.

Joe


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 17, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> So tell us, which US or USSR fighters were competitive with the Me109f/g in 1942? What was the alternative to the Hurricane as an air superiority fighter against the Luftwaffe? What US or USSR fighter was superior to the Spitfire V in 1942? Wasn't the USAAF flying the Spitfire V in 1942-43? I wonder why they were using UK built fighters?



It depends on how one defines "competitive" i suppose.  Properly fought, any modern or even semi-modern fighter plane can be competitive. The UK by 41-42 ranked it's fighters in competitive order (based on fighting mainly in the desert) as Spitfire, Kittyhawk, Tomahawk, Hurricane. (best to worst in terms of taking on the Experten in their 109's) The German pilots from what i read agreed with this generalization. It gets blurred of course depending on situaiton. They considered the "Curtiss" (P-40) fighter at it's most dangerous at med-low to low altitude and Experten warned their less experienced bretherin to "never dogfight a Curitss" (aka....get into a turning fight) Its interesting to note that US and Commonwealth experiences with the P-40 frame were notably different....similar to the notable difference with Airacobra (USAAF vs VVS pilots), and of course the Brewster experience. The Russians (at least per Loza's book on the 216th Fighter Regiment) considered the P-39 to be the best fighter for their new tactics which stressed vertical maneuvers, of which they considered it to be slightly better at than the 109F or G. They also felt the 39 preformed better "at altitude" than the P40. There's not much mention (as of yet) of the Spit's attributes (some being present and used in the 216th during the Kuban campaign) but the 39's regularily flew top cover as high as 16-19 thousand feet.



> So over Darwin the P40s were intercepting at exactly the same altitude as the Spitfires?



IIRC, the Darwin situation was mentioned in Bergerud's book on South Pacific air combat. It's alleged that the incoming Spit pilots were warned not to use "the usual tactics" against Zeros but these warnings were not heeded with the expected results. SpitVIII's, despite their technical superiority also had problems with Ki-43 drivers in Burma. At one point operationally they were stalemated....neither side being able to gain air superiority over the other.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 17, 2010)

JoeB said:


> 3. last one first, you haven't specified any particular statement I made that was incorrect, or shown any contrary research. Obviously you don't like my post, but you have to do more than just say generally 'it's incorrect' for your rejoinder to have any credibility.
> 
> 1. As I stated, the Soviets thought that the US Lend Lease fighters, as well as the newer of their own types, were superior in the circumstances to the Hurricane. And, we can see from contemporary combat results in other theaters that the Hurricane was less a match for 109F/G by 1942 than other Allied fighters including P-40 types; Brit/CW generally agreed this. So the Soviet opinion is not very surprising.
> 
> ...



1) So why didn't they say" thanks, but no thanks" to the Hurricanes and of course the answer is that the Hurricane was available, when the other types were not. The Hurricane was a better aircraft than either the P40 or P39 for high altitude missions, but inferior for low altitude missions. The tactical situation is the key data which will determine which type is better in a given situation, but you prefer to ignore the tactical situation and treat all situations "same exact". Which is farcical and extremely misleading. 

2) The simple fact is that the P40 and Spit missions over Darwin were not the same, the Japanese adjusted their tactics and came in at high altitude, above the reach of the P40, but this also caused problems for the Spitfires, but at the lower altitude of the P40 raids it is quite logical to assume that the Spitfire would do better and P40/P39 interceptions were actually not that common even at lower altitudes:

_



First priority naturally went to the defense of Allied bases, a burden which fell upon the fighter units at Moresby and Darwin. *Over both points the enemy bombers usually came in at 22,000 feet and above, too high for satisfactory interception by P-40's, P-39's, or P-400's, the only fighters available to the AAF in the Southwest Pacific, and their limitations seriously affected Allied operations.*64* During July the P-39 had made contact with enemy bombers only four times in a series of nine raids despite a thirty-minute warning; in sixteen actual contacts it never once enjoyed an altitude advantage and the Zero invariably could outclimb and outmaneuver this fighter, which suffered the additional disadvantage of increased vulnerability because of the location of its motor behind the pilot. The P-40 was somewhat better, but it, too, was outperformed by the more nimble enemy fighters, particularly at high altitudes. Inferior performance of their planes lowered the morale of the pilots.*65 It was true that the Allied planes were more rugged and less inflammable, they could outdive the Zero, and if given warning to permit them to reach sufficient altitude they could achieve creditable scores, as they did on 30 July over Darwin when twenty-seven P-40's shot down six Zeros and two bombers at the cost of one P-40.66 But pilots continued to be frustrated, as on 17 August, when for the seventy-eighth time enemy bombers struck Moresby in an attempt to disable their favorite target, Seven-Mile Airdrome. *Although defending fighters had received adequate warning, they were unable to intercept.*67

Click to expand...

_HyperWar: The Army Air Forces in WWII: Vol. IV--The Pacific: Guadalcanal to Saipan [Chapter 1]

The average bomber altitude during the Spitfire missions was something like 27,000ft.

Saying missions are _*same exact*_, when they are not is highly misleading.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 17, 2010)

> Glider said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that anyone would pretend that the Hurriacne was an equal match for the 109 in any version. Howeverto pretend that the Spit V wasn't a match for the 109F or russian fighters does fly in the face of the evidence...
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 17, 2010)

Getting back to the original question, a lot of the discrepancies can be explained by timing. 

The British were testing P-39s in the Summer of 1941 and trying to issue them to an operational squadron in the fall of 1941. The planes they had were not quite ready for for combat operations, either in needed performance or in operational readiness. 
performance was nowhere near the manufactures claims and the all electric airplane suffered many faults. And with faults in the electrical system affecting land gear retraction, extension, flaps and even propeller pitch changes this is not a minor complaint. Lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide in the cockpit after firing the guns and having the compass going out of service after firing the guns were other problems. Having a non-functioning compass over France and facing a channel crossing to get home isn't a good idea. Put that together with the P-39s landing and take-off distances which limited the fields it could fly out of and it's short range and one can see why the British weren't that keen to keep the planes they ordered. 
The Americans had several more months to sort out the problems before they saw combat and didn't have a lot of other choices in any case in Dec 1941 or early 1942. 
I don't know how much trouble the Russians had with the early models and while they got 200 or so of these early models I doubt that they were "used" or worn to any extent. The British kept 79 or 80 and since they only tried to equip one squadron that number seems quite enough to cover any and all needs related to equipping that squadron or any other planned ones that never got any, ground schools and the like. 

Russian use of the P-39 when compared to western allied use is often complicated not only by the different missions but in trying to compare the actual performance. The Russians being much more likely to remove wing guns or at least not carry any where near full ammunition loads for the wing guns. With 1000 rounds per .30 cal gun that is about 120lbs per wing just for the ammo. Even if it doesn't affect the top speed by that much it will affect the climb, ceiling and initial roll rate. 
Another point on timing of comparisons is that while the chart supplied by Timpa is very interesting it isn't quite accurate in comparing the "British" P-39 to the Spitfire because the the 'D-2' version P-39 in the chart used a later model Allison with 1325hp available for take-off and low altitude use ( with 1590hp WEP) compared to the 1150Hp take-off and low altitude ratings for the Early P-39s. The "D-2" isn't delivered from the factory until June of 1942 and by the time they can be shipped to combat fronts (Russia or Pacific) it is probably several more months at a minimum before they saw combat use. 
In Russian service the use of some of these higher power settings could be subject to the availability of western fuels.


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 17, 2010)

VG-33 said:


> we can see that mk V was 45 km/h slower than the P-39D, 75 km/h than the Yak-9 and *full 105* km/h compared to the La-5F at SL!








You can see from here that the Soviet Spit V is *not* equipped with a trop filter:
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/spit/index.htm

The speeds given in the top chart are somewhat at variance with RAE figures, and they appear to be using WEP for all aircraft except the Spitfire and Hurricane. Using 12lb boost, there's very little difference between the P39 and Spit V. SL speed at 12lb boost for the Spit V = 482km/h versus about 490 km/h for the P39D while the Spit Vb with the Merlin 46 was very similar:


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 18, 2010)

Hello,



Shortround6 said:


> I don't know how much trouble the Russians had with the early models and while they got 200 or so of these early models I doubt that they were "used" or worn to any extent.



A *good *link, my friend's M. Sribny site for your doubts:
Early Cobra's in Soviet Aviation








> Another point on timing of comparisons is that while the chart supplied by Timpa is very interesting it isn't quite accurate in comparing the "British" P-39 to the Spitfire because the the 'D-2' version P-39 in the chart used a later model Allison with 1325hp available for take-off and low altitude use ( with 1590hp WEP) compared to the 1150Hp take-off and low altitude ratings for the Early P-39s. The "D-2" isn't delivered from the factory until June of 1942 and by the time they can be shipped to combat fronts (Russia or Pacific) it is probably several more months at a minimum before they saw combat use.



Timpa chart is from "Samoletostroeniye" book p 242, on page 244-245 the table for the showed graphics quotes (don't have working scan ; ) 


For the* P-39 D-2*, tested in april 1942 at LII-VVS

A 1135 hp Allison V-1710-35,

3556 kg "full" weight ( j'm not sure that it was the "trials" weight: in soviet service usually less than 3300...)

472 km/h/493* at SL 557 at 3950m/585 at 4200m*

17.7-18.7 s (excellent!!) turning rate for a 360°

* so called "combat rating": 5 min from the graph indication. Translate in corrects worlds in your own langage. (WEP?, CP?)


The *P-40E *in that order, tested in july 1942

a 1150 hp V-1710-39

450/477* and 549/575*


No wep indication for the* P-40C*, tested in october 1941 and its V-1710-33

445 SL, [email protected]

Hope it can help...

Regards


PS:



> In Russian service the use of some of these higher power settings could be subject to the availability of western fuels.


 Sure, the Allisson was much less reluctant than the RR, to use soviet fuels and oils. This ability i think, may help for popularity and airworthiness...But was about 10-15 km/h faster with its guenine american 100LL, than with soviet 95 one (in fact 92-94)/


----------



## timshatz (Jun 18, 2010)

Good discussion so far guys. Interesting stuff. 

Anybody have a good idea what the standard combat load was for the Soviets with the P39? After the wing guns, what else did they remove? I had heard some armor was taken out. 

Also, did the Soviets ever try and take the 37MM gun out and replace it with their own 23MM? Seems like a simple but good idea.


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 18, 2010)

From what i've gleaned so far, the Soviets appreciated the armor of the P-39 and I have found no specific mention thus far that any armor was removed. It seems counter-intuitive given the positive comments regarding the plane's protection. The removed wing guns made sense as it slightly increased the plane's roll rate and besides, the soviets considered the nose based firepower more than sufficient to blast targets at close range.

Believe full fuel loads were used, particularily given that early combat showed that it was a bad idea to enter a battle area at lower cruising speeds for the sake of conserving fuel. Standard doctrine was quickly changed so that Airacobra's would enter the assigned area at maximum cruise speed, even at the expense of reduced station time (quoted now as 20-30 minutes)

The Russian pilots appear to have liked the 37mm cannon....the only criticism being that it's ROF was a tad slow. On the plus size they commented that a single round could destroy any Luftwaffe target in their sights. Combined with the 50's.....it was repeatedly described as a devestating combo. One major modification done was the firing mechanisms for the 50's and cannon were wired to be fired together via one trigger.

Soviets tended to only replace defective or worn components with soviet manufactured parts where and when necessary. These included spark plugs, generators, altimeter and temperature guages, O2 masks and booster coils on the engines.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 18, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> 1) So why didn't they say" thanks, but no thanks" to the Hurricanes and of course the answer is that the Hurricane was available, when the other types were not.
> 
> 2) The simple fact is that the P40 and Spit missions over Darwin were not the same, the Japanese adjusted their tactics and came in at high altitude, above the reach of the P40, but this also caused problems for the Spitfires, but at the lower altitude of the P40 raids it is quite logical to assume that the Spitfire would do better and P40/P39 interceptions were actually not that common even at lower altitudes:
> 
> ...


1. Why not say no thanks? because the alternatives might be I-16's, or nothing. It doesn't answer the simple *correct*  point I actually made: the Soviets viewed LL a/c like P-40 superior to the Hurricane for their purposes, and that doesn't actually disagree with Western opinion in the same period. There was no big 'if and but' about the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk types v the Hurricane in Med theater, the P-40 types were an improvement in the circumstances and missions pertaining. It's not about looking for some hypothetical benefit of doubt situation where the Hurricane could be said to have an advantage. The Soviets felt the Hurricane inferior for their purposes; it was also judged inferior in West for at least some purposes, so no big shock. That's the simple point I made and you haven't contradicted it.

2. Again if you'd thought about what I said last time, you wouldn't have posted those excerpts from generic works I assume everyone here has read, I certainly have, it's kind of spamming really, that semi-contradict your own point. The Spit V had superior altitude performance to the P-40E, but the Japanese had a long time to balance out the tactical plus and minus of bombing altitude v the P-40 and P-39. It's simply not plausible or logical to say the Japanese failed to adopt high altitude attacks in many raids v. P-39/40 and that this somehow explains the poorer record of a better altitude plane, the Spit V, against later raids by the same Japanese units. 

That doesn't make sense, even if true as you laid out. But if you look at the descriptions in books that describe each raid in both campaigns in detail from both sides, like Baeza's "Soleil Levant Sur L'Australie", that argument is not even well supported, that the altitudes varied all that much between campaigns, considering all combats, some of which in both campaigns had the Japanese fighters mainly out to shoot down interceptors, in fighter sweeps or by by heavily escorting small recon flights. The Spits for example scored half their 4 kills v Zeroes (v 26 combat losses to them) on one mission where they jumped Zeroes which were on the deck strafing an airfield. The P-40's went 10:19 v the Zeroes. 

Explaining this as a result of the fact that the P-40 was inferior in altitude performance, so the Japanese adopted high altitude tactics, only after they weren't fighting P-40's, and this explains why the Spitfire's poorer record doesn't mean it really did worse than the P-40...I doubt that makes sense to anybody but you, or perhaps not you if consider it carefully.  And you should really read Baeza on this campaign, not rely on supposition of what really happened from older one sided works.

Joe


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 18, 2010)

JoeB said:


> 1. Why not say no thanks? because the alternatives might be I-16's, or nothing. It doesn't answer the simple *correct*  point I actually made: the Soviets viewed LL a/c like P-40 superior to the Hurricane for their purposes, and that doesn't actually disagree with Western opinion in the same period. There was no big 'if and but' about the Tomahawk/Kittyhawk types v the Hurricane in Med theater, the P-40 types were an improvement in the circumstances and missions pertaining. It's not about looking for some hypothetical benefit of doubt situation where the Hurricane could be said to have an advantage. The Soviets felt the Hurricane inferior for their purposes; it was also judged inferior in West for at least some purposes, so no big shock. That's the simple point I made and you haven't contradicted it.
> 
> 2. Again if you'd thought about what I said last time, you wouldn't have posted those excerpts from generic works I assume everyone here has read, I certainly have, it's kind of spamming really, that semi-contradict your own point. The Spit V had superior altitude performance to the P-40E, but the Japanese had a long time to balance out the tactical plus and minus of bombing altitude v the P-40 and P-39. It's simply not plausible or logical to say the Japanese failed to adopt high altitude attacks in many raids v. P-39/40 and that this somehow explains the poorer record of a better altitude plane, the Spit V, against later raids by the same Japanese units.
> 
> ...



1) The USSR was invaded on June 22 1941. As has been discussed, aircraft with clearly better performance than a Hurricane II did not arrive in any numbers until fairly late in 1942. In the Med the RAF began to commit the P40 against 2nd line opponents in Mid 1941 along with clapped out Hurricane Is, but reserved the the really tough assignments (read Malta) to the Hurricane II. 

2) Now you are trying to weasel out of the fact that the missions flown against the Japanese by the P39/40 and Spitfires, were very different tactical situations, yet you continue to spout the fiction that the missions were the same, when, by using "generic sources" it is easy to see that they were quite different. The P39/40 had great difficulty in making an interception against bomber foirces flown at about 5000ft average lower altitute than during the Spitfire missions. The only reason the P40s made more kills than the Spits is that they flow far more sorties to achieve their kills. 

The Japanese initial bombing campaign against the P39/40 was in fact, on average, flown at the optimal altitudes for the Hurricane II and Spit V and there is every reason to believe that if these *same* Japanese attacks had been meet by equal numbers of Hurricane II or Spit V fighters, that they would have scored more kills than the p39/40s. You always want to pretend that the tactical situation doesn't matter when it clearly does!!! Just ask some A6M driver flying a 1200 mile round trip sortie, with no radio and retaining his drop tank during combat over Guadalcanal, if he felt that this didn't put him at a disadvantage to a Me109E based 70 miles away from Malta, and probably within radio range of base the whole time

Your posts are highly misleading, because you prefer to gloss over the messy details...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2010)

VG-33 said:


> A *good *link, my friend's M. Sribny site for your doubts:
> 
> Thank you for the link.
> 
> ...


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 20, 2010)

Hi



RCAFson said:


> The speeds given in the top chart are somewhat at variance with RAE figures, ...


Nothing surprinsing, mid-serial mass produced planes (moreover with some wear ...) are generally providing inferior than those specially prepared for state test trials. It’s why soviet tests for foreign planes are particulary informative...



> and they appear to be using WEP for all aircraft except the Spitfire and Hurricane.


There is nothing to “appear” or to play riddles on soviet tests. When WEP is used, it’s indicated. 



> Using 12lb boost, there's very little difference between the P39 and Spit V. SL speed at 12lb boost for the Spit V = 482km/h versus about 490 km/h for the P39D while the Spit Vb with the Merlin 46 was very similar:


Once upon a time, in the West (of Kent)... a Spit V may have reach 482 km/h at SL with 12Ib or 16. But, for objective and subjective reasons it was not flown like that in USSR. I guess soviets didn’t have that special plane with modified blower, and even so, were not allowed by british engeeners (or technical booklets) to use it that whay. 

So once again, as in my post 74:
*The soviet Spit V *was *not cometitive at low altitude *against soviet Yak, La-5 or P-39's, in late 1943 spring.
We’re not taking the Spitfire to court in general, just in one day one place in specific east front-conditions.



> 1) So why didn't they say" thanks, but no thanks" to the Hurricanes and of course the answer is that the Hurricane was available, when the other types were not.


???!!!....But non only *they DID*! They did it mainly times, with no success.... As point as Stalin personnaly wrote Churchill a famous letter in october 42, the (7th it seems...or 23th) asking to replace all Hurricane deliveries by P-40 and P-39... 
Of course, soviet pilots themselves did not took such a long time to loose their illusions about Hurricane capabilities, Novikov the VV-S marshal-commander was trying to substitude or wihdraw the Hurricane from early 42th summer after a general meeting for military aviation, in the light of experience gained and compilated, after a year of intensive fight.




> The Hurricane was a better aircraft than either the P40 or P39 for high altitude missions, but inferior for low altitude missions.


It's called a corollary for what was said before. 

But don't worry for Hurricane faith in the eastern front, Britt's are not the kind of men to be impressed, should it be by Stalin or not. Phlegmaic and tenacious as hell, there continued Hurricane deliveries to SSSR at bigger squale than before.

It's why 773 Hurries were still serving in the red airforce in may 1945, the 1st. 

8 of them only, it's true in the active army units (1%)
34 in military districts (at the rear)
731 in the PVO (anti-aircraft defence command)

In proportion P-40s were at the same position 10 / 1065 *but*

for the P-39 some 912 / 2238 of them were still destinated to soldier in first-line VVS units

In summer 1943, soviet changes attitude towards P-40, and asked their replacement by P-39. 

It's the good question, 


Markus said:


> The former (P-40 was used) the Med because it was better than the Hurricane and Spits were reserved for "use in the UK only" at that time. The Allison powered Mustangs were used for tactical recon IIRC.



Why did Brits prefered the P-40, and the soviets the P-39?

Regards


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 20, 2010)

VG-33 said:


> Hi
> 
> 
> Nothing surprinsing, mid-serial mass produced planes (moreover with some wear ...) are generally providing inferior than those specially prepared for state test trials. It’s why soviet tests for foreign planes are particulary informative...
> ...






> _
> What about the Cobra’s engine?
> 
> *It was good, but weak in terms of engine hours, and not very good if you flew with too much throttle.* I will tell you about it. This was not a fault of the airplane, but ours.* Because our gasoline was not suitable.* We flew on our fuel—B-78. The Cobra had a limiter [governor]. The normal supercharger pressure on the Cobra was 67 pounds per square inch. They set the governor on the Cobra so that it would not exceed 45 pounds. Kinematics supported this; it was ours, already developed. It would not give any more with our fuel. Therefore, if one were using our fuel, the connecting rods in the engine would snap. That’s not all. They glued a piece of paper on the throttle slot. Paper, ordinary paper. You could set the throttle to get only 40 pounds. Maximum 40. But in combat it was possible to get 45 pounds, but only by tearing the paper. Then you had to report this to the mechanics later. They could see this themselves; they then would remove the filters from the engine to check for [metal] filings.[/B]
> ...


Interview with P.Ovsyannikov

So 100 octane fuel was available in some locations and not others, and the performance levels indicated by this graph:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/109542d1256053432-russian-fighters-
clearly show that 100 octane fuel was being used for the US aircraft tests and not the UK ones. While the above comments are also clear that his aircraft would have much lower power levels.




> _However, most of all the technical personnel of the regiments were dissatisfied with the power plant of the British fighter—the Merlin 45 and 46 engines.* In particular, the summaries say that the “engines function fully satisfactorily.* The strong side of the Merlin engine is the fact that a PRD has been mounted on it, a regulator for the quality of the [fuel] mixture.” The engine had another quality as important to technical personnel as simplicity of service—assembly and disassembly of the engine was simple; there were no particularly difficult approaches to it. The engine started easily, its RZ-5 spark plugs worked for up to 50–60 hours which, as the mechanics noted, was also a good indicator. However, these same spark plugs had a “very weak electrode.”
> 
> *Adjustment of the engine itself, according to the testimony of specialists, was simple. The qualities that the pilots liked, and which were very important in aerial combat—transition to various regimes of power of the Merlin were smooth. The engine had good acceleration—it is obvious that this quality substantially assisted Spitfire pilots in combat with Messerschmitts, which thanks to the power of the Daimler-Benz engine had good speed dynamics.
> *_


_
_Spitfires over the Kuban

Now the article goes on to complain about engine life, etc but these complaints are being made against the Allison as well.

Appendix A:

16 GIAP (P39) 20 combats - 24 kills (8b-16f), 3 aircraft and 3 pilots lost from all causes
57 GIAP (SpitV) 23 combats - 30 kills (15b-15f), 7 aircraft and 3 pilots lost from all causes.
Spitfires over the Kuban
Note the number of bomber kills by the Spit V.



> ???!!!....But non only *they DID*! They did it mainly times, with no success.... As point as Stalin personnaly wrote Churchill a famous letter in october 42, the (7th it seems...or 23th) asking to replace all Hurricane deliveries by P-40 and P-39...



Hmmm, and of course Stalin's opinion was written in late 1942, and may have been the result of 100 octane fuel being available to some newer units with US LL supplied aircraft and while UK supplied Hurricanes were using Soviet fuel and had their overboost disabled. I also suppose that if Stalin said the Hurricane was no good, that lots of SUAF personnel would feel free to disagree...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 20, 2010)

"... Hmmm, and of course Stalin's opinion was written in late 1942, and may have been the result of 100 octane fuel being available to some newer units with US LL supplied aircraft and while UK supplied Hurricanes were using Soviet fuel and had their overboost disabled. I also suppose that if Stalin said the Hurricane was no good, that lots of SUAF personnel would feel free to disagree..."

You raise good points RCAFson. The US wasn't just supplying aviation gas but also octane booster for Soviet gas. Much as I love the P-39 in Soviet service, I've always felt that the "fix" was in on the Hurricane and the Spit. When the Soviets didn't have anything else they were glad to get them - 

MM


----------



## JoeB (Jun 20, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> 1) The USSR was invaded on June 22 1941. As has been discussed, aircraft with clearly better performance than a Hurricane II did not arrive in any numbers until fairly late in 1942. In the Med the RAF began to commit the P40 against 2nd line opponents in Mid 1941 along with clapped out Hurricane Is, but reserved the the really tough assignments (read Malta) to the Hurricane II.
> 
> 2) Now you are trying to weasel out of the fact that the missions flown against the Japanese by the P39/40 and Spitfires, were very different tactical situations,
> 
> Just ask some A6M driver flying a 1200 mile round trip sortie, with no radio and retaining his drop tank during combat over Guadalcanal, if he felt that this didn't put him at a disadvantage to a Me109E based 70 miles away from Malta, and probably within radio range of base the whole time


1. When the P-40 was around, the Soviets thought it superior. Go back and see if I ever said they thought the P-40 was superior before it was available for them to try it  You're just not answering the point I made, Soviets found P-40 superior for their purposes, when they flew it, obviously.

And, while this whole point is a tangent, because obviously the Soviets didn't find the P-39/40 superior before they had any, you statements about P-40 and Hurricane use in Med is not true. P-40 types (starting with P-40B/Tomahawk) were used by Desert AF, Hurricane by DAF and at Malta. But nether Desert nor North Africa was consistently the 'tougher assignment' in the year of P-40's intro, 1941. In Feb-May '41 Bf109E's operated from Sicily v Malta alongside Italian fighters; the 109E's achieved a fighter-fighter kill ratio of 35:0 v Hurricanes, with only 1 staffel, less than 10 a/c, deployed for most of that period. From May-Dec only Italian fighters operated against Malta, and Hurricanes generally had the advantage, except v Mc202's from September. In December the German fighters re-appeared, larger numbers of Bf109F's, and the RAF soon definitely concluded the Hurricane could not handle this threat, hence Spitfires to Malta in '42.

In contrast Bf109E's appeared in the Western Desert in April 1941, and 109's were continuously present there from then on; 109F's appeared in September. The Tomahawk was first deployed in June. So the Western Desert was by no means populated by second line fighter opposition in 1941 compared to Malta, and the general consensus was that the Tomahawk could face 109's on a less disadvantageous footing than the Hurricane could, in situation in the Western Desert. So again it's not shocking Soviet opinion was simialr in their particular situation. See "Malta The Hurricane Years", "Hurricanes over Malta", "Fighters over the Desert".

2. I am speaking of P-40 missions defending Darwin against bombers escorted by the JNAF 3rd Air Group in spring-summer 1942, v Spitfire missions defending Darwin against bombers escorted by the same fighter unit (re-designated 202nd Air Group in Nov 1942) in spring-fall 1943. You are inserting references to US fighter types defending other targets. I'm talking the straight apples to apples case. And as I said, read Baeza, "Soleil Levant Sur L'Australie", blow by blow of each mission in both campaigns v Darwin (and all combat air ops from or over Australia). It *was* the same mission, and no systematic difference in the way the Japanese carried it out. 

There's no logical connection between Malta and G'canal in the discussion at hand. Maybe you're dragging in previous topics (like F4F and Hurricane)? but it's irrelevant and confusing for it just pop up as supposed couter to my point about Spits and P-40 defending Darwin. P-40's and Spit V's at Darwin faced Zeroes flying the same distance, from Timor, a little over 500 miles one way, relatively comfortable range for a Zero, though far beyond the capabilities of P-40, Spit V or Bf109. Early Zero missions v Guadalcanal were 600 miles one way (but it's a myth they couldn't drop tanks on a mission of that length or any range they could reach, external tank was well under than 1/2 the total fuel load, and jettisonable), but they soon had divert fields on the way back, then some (albieit slightly shorter ranged Model 32 Zeroes) were based at Buin, around 300 miles away. Zero missions from Lae To Moresby were under 200 miles one way, skip and a jump for a Zero; some of those missions were flown direct from Rabaul but they had Lae as divert field. But again I'm comparing apples and apples, Darwin defense by P-40's, Darwin defense by Spits. The Spit, at the very least, failed to show superiority over the P-40 in that situation, which makes the Soviet verdict on the Spit V less surprising, and again a common theme was the Spit's lack of tolerance for primitive conditions, but those were sometimes simply the conditions under which an a/c had to be judged.

You keep calling me 'incorrect' and then 'misleading' but seems you have an awful lot of gaps in your knowledge of combat operations of these various a/c. Maybe you should read more about the topic and maybe learn more, not just scramble around for internet links that you think support the opinions you already have. 

Joe


----------



## Juha (Jun 21, 2010)

Hello RCAFson

Quote:” Hmmm, and of course Stalin's opinion was written in late 1942, and may have been the result of 100 octane fuel being available to some newer units with US LL supplied aircraft and while UK supplied Hurricanes were using Soviet fuel and had their overboost disabled. I also suppose that if Stalin said the Hurricane was no good, that lots of SUAF personnel would feel free to disagree...”

Now the point is that Soviets decided to give their limited amount of 100oct fuel to certain P-39 units, most probably because they saw that to be the most effective way to use that stock. P-39 units participated the battle of Berlin and many top Soviet aces got most of their kills while flying P-39s. 
At least some, for ex our second ranking ace Wind, Finnish fighter pilots saw I-16 and I-153 more dangerous opponents to Brewster B-239 than Hurricane.

Juha


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 21, 2010)

> Shortround6 said:
> 
> 
> > thank you for work in listing the speeds.
> ...


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 21, 2010)

"Soleil Levant sur l'Australie"

Is there an English language edition of this work?


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 21, 2010)

I thought it was so bad it only served with No. 601 Squadron


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 21, 2010)

JoeB said:


> 1. When the P-40 was around, the Soviets thought it superior. Go back and see if I ever said they thought the P-40 was superior before it was available for them to try it  You're just not answering the point I made, Soviets found P-40 superior for their purposes, when they flew it, obviously.
> 
> And, while this whole point is a tangent, because obviously the Soviets didn't find the P-39/40 superior before they had any, you statements about P-40 and Hurricane use in Med is not true. P-40 types (starting with P-40B/Tomahawk) were used by Desert AF, Hurricane by DAF and at Malta. But nether Desert nor North Africa was consistently the 'tougher assignment' in the year of P-40's intro, 1941. In Feb-May '41 Bf109E's operated from Sicily v Malta alongside Italian fighters; the 109E's achieved a fighter-fighter kill ratio of 35:0 v Hurricanes, with only 1 staffel, less than 10 a/c, deployed for most of that period. From May-Dec only Italian fighters operated against Malta, and Hurricanes generally had the advantage, except v Mc202's from September. In December the German fighters re-appeared, larger numbers of Bf109F's, and the RAF soon definitely concluded the Hurricane could not handle this threat, hence Spitfires to Malta in '42.
> 
> ...


1) The P40 in Commonwealth service saw first combat against the Vichy AF in Syria.

Again, you present the fiction that Malta based Hurricanes were facing a single staffel of Me109s , In Feb-May '41, when you know full well that other staffels participated in that time frame and that the Me109 flew missions where RA fighters were also present in large numbers, and the Hurricanes, were typically outnumbered at least 3-1, when operating from a base about 70 miles from Luftwaffe/RA bases in Sicily, unlike the DAF where the situation was fluid. 

2)

How surprising that Lundstrum repeats your "myths" as facts, while detailing the severe tactical disadvantage that the Zeros had to operate under during the air battles over Guadalcanal. But when you quote your F4F versus Hurricane stats, you conveniently neglect to mention the tactical differences between the Zeros facing the F4Fs and Me109s facing the Hurricanes over Malta.

So you are claiming that the average altitude of the IJAF bombers was the same in during the P40 and Spit defence of Darwin? For example the P40s greatest success was on April 25, 1942 when* 50 P40s* intercepted 24 bombers escorted by *9 Zeros*, with the bombers flying at 14-16000ft. Aces of the pacific, Hess, p13. Yet a year later, 34 Spitfires intercepted a raid where the "numbers were 18 bombers and 27 fighters" with the bombers at 27000ft and the fighters at 31000 ft. http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/27/chapters/03.pdf It's pretty obvious that these are completely different tactical situations! BTW the first encounter for P40s against Zeros over Darwin went 10-1 in the Zeros favour...of the course the tactical situation heavily favoured the Zeros, but lets not get into messy details...


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 21, 2010)

Juha said:


> Now the point is that Soviets decided to give their limited amount of 100oct fuel to certain P-39 units, most probably because they saw that to be the most effective way to use that stock. P-39 units participated the battle of Berlin and many top Soviet aces got most of their kills while flying P-39s.
> At least some, for ex our second ranking ace Wind, Finnish fighter pilots saw I-16 and I-153 more dangerous opponents to Brewster B-239 than Hurricane.
> 
> Juha



That might be so. The P39 had very poor performance and it made sense to optimize it. The fact remains that the performance figures given here:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/109542d1256053432-russian-fighters-
for the Spit V and Hurricane II are without 12lb boost while the other fighters are using boost levels possible with 100octane fuel.
Here's an estimate of a Hurricane I performance with 12lb boost:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/Hurricane_Speed-HRuch.png
and you can see the P40/P39 no longer seem so superior.

OTOH, here the performance of the Spit IX:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/flight-test-data/109541d1256053432-russian-fighters-
is shown with 100 octane fuel boost levels and is a very close match to RAE figures.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 21, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> ...The P-39 had very poor performance...


That's a pretty blanket statement that doesn't stand up to scrutiny

The P-39 had issues with range and altitude
Given the type of war the Soviets were fighting, altitude wasn't really an issue as far as they were concerned and they got round the range problem by placing their P-39 units just behind the battlefront.

Or how did many of the top Soviet aces get most of their kills whilst flying P-39s?


----------



## Njaco (Jun 21, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> 1)
> Again, you present the fiction that Malta based Hurricanes were facing a single staffel of Me109s , In Feb-May '41, when you know full well that other staffels participated in that time frame and that the Me109 flew missions where RA fighters were also present in large numbers, and the Hurricanes, were typically outnumbered at least 3-1, when operating from a base about 70 miles from Luftwaffe/RA bases in Sicily, unlike the DAF where the situation was fluid. ...



In that timeframe there were 2 stafflen of Bf 109s operating in the area from Fliegerfuhrer Afrika (subordinated to Fliegerkorps X) and they were 7./JG 26 (Muncheburg) and 1./JG 27. Others 'generally' in the area were I./JG 27, I./JG 77, III./JG 77 and I(Schlacht)./LG 2 who were based in Bulgaria from April onwards to support operations in Greece ad against Crete. But for the most part over Malta and NA it was 7./JG 26 and 1./JG 27 during Feb. - May 1941.


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 22, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> clearly show that 100 octane fuel was being used for the US aircraft tests and not the UK ones. While the above comments are also clear that his aircraft would have much lower power levels.


Where is it taken from? 
The soviets power charts clearly shows that 12 lb was used on Merlin 46, maybe 16-18 since 1415 hp power is indicated. So for the 100 rated british (or american) fuel, from technical booklets and TsAGI reports.
If you don't know, why are you speculating?




> Hmmm, and of course Stalin's opinion was written in late 1942, and may have been the result of 100 octane fuel being available to some newer units with US LL supplied aircraft and while UK supplied Hurricanes were using Soviet fuel and had their overboost disabled. I also suppose that if Stalin said the Hurricane was no good, that lots of SUAF personnel would feel free to disagree...


Stalin had no opinion and some other buisiness was taking all his time, in 1942. He wrotes (with considerable delay) because he was asked to, by his own airmen. Soviet Hurricanes were able to use guenine british fuel in VVS, TsAGI and NKAP trial centers, as Spitfires, as much as they want. There were small batches of soviet produced 100 octanes fuel too, for experimental purposes.

In front line units it might have been different. 

Fitting a Merlin XX from a Hurrie mkII in a YaK-1 airframe provides a 670 km/h speed, instead of 525 , and impressive climbing increase: 4 min to 5000 m. At the same power of course. I doubt that a lot of SUAF personnal would feel happy to come back to the Hurricane after such a plane. Compared to a Spit V or IX, this plane was no less obsolete in 42.

Unfortunatly, despite numerous requests neither British accepted important Merlin deliveries without their airframes, nor they accepted "regular supply" chart commitment.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 22, 2010)

I wonder how they would have armed a Merlin engined Yak 1?


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 22, 2010)

claidemore said:


> I wonder how they would have armed a Merlin engined Yak 1?


Do you mean 'would they have had to install armament in the wings'?


----------



## claidemore (Jun 22, 2010)

Wings? Nose? 
My guess would be in the wings, but I'm not sure the Yak wing would allow that? Underwing pods maybe? With consequent loss in agility? (pods on 109 didn't cost much in speed)
Would there be room to mount a couple UBS or ShVAK around the engine? Certainly can't put a cannon through the middle like they did with the Klimov.


----------



## Colin1 (Jun 22, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Wings? Nose?
> My guess would be in the wings, but I'm not sure the Yak wing would allow that? Underwing pods maybe? With consequent loss in agility? (pods on 109 didn't cost much in speed)
> Would there be room to mount a couple UBS or ShVAK around the engine? Certainly can't put a cannon through the middle like they did with the Klimov.


lol I was just guessing
did the Yak have only nose-mounted armament? I know it was lightly armed and then became even more lightly armed. If that was the case, then a Merlin installation might prove a conundrum if the wings had never been devised to house weapons.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 22, 2010)

Did any Merlin powered plane ever used synchronized guns?

Not saying it couldn't be done but if there were no mounting points for Synchronizer motors on existing engines then Field swaps would be even harder. 

Sort of leaves wing or under wing guns only.


----------



## riacrato (Jun 22, 2010)

Weren't the Yak-1 wings made of wood?


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 22, 2010)

claidemore said:


> I wonder how they would have armed a Merlin engined Yak 1?



Immediatly you saw the problem...
Maybe in wings or in underwing pods "à la" MiG-3 (of MiG-3's kind)..

The other problem was propeller clearance. Spit had a larger prop. The Yak-I-30 wing was probably the better aswer to both problems, at some little speed coast, of course due to U-shaped wings "à la" Corsair:






We better see here. Imagine this without synchronised guns, and no motor-canon.






Regards


----------



## Timppa (Jun 23, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello RCAFson
> At least some, for ex our second ranking ace Wind, Finnish fighter pilots saw I-16 and I-153 more dangerous opponents to Brewster B-239 than Hurricane.
> 
> Juha



Hi Juha,

And that for good reason. I recently crawled through The Finnish Air Force -book series, and counted all the Soviet fighter/bomber victories of the FAF planes in the Continuation War ( from Jun 1941 to Sept. 1944). The total amount is some 100 planes (give or take a few, there are a few unclear cases).
Rather surprisingly (to me) the plane type that got more victories than any other, was the I-153.
Most of the Hurricanes' victories were obtained by the 152 IAP, which also operated I-153's.

I also counted the Russian losses in the great 1944 offensive, in a period of 38 days.
The relative losses of P-39's were about twice as high than of Yaks and La-5's.
This seems to reinforce Juutilainen's opinion that the Yaks and La's were better than any of the "sympathy" (western Lend-Lease) planes


----------



## Juha (Jun 23, 2010)

Hello Timppa
very interesting, I have gone through same series when I tried to establish the claim accuracy of innish pilots, but stopped on 28 Jun 44, because overclaiming made the accurate appraisal very difficult because of 4 claimer orgs (FAF, Gef.VB Kuhlmey, AA and naval AA) and lack of exact info on place and time of Soviet losses.

But when years ago I counted the summer 44 losses and victories of LeR 3 from Stenman’s and Keskinen’s book I got 

FAF losses 5 by ACs (3MTs+2BWs)	FAF victories (not claims) over ACs at least 29
_________2 by WHs (2MSs)_______________________________over WHs_ 3
_________4 by La-5s (4 MTs)______________________________over La-5s 26
_________4 by Jak-9s (4MTs)______________________________over Jak-9s 40 + 2 Jak-7s

and of course many Il-2s, which on the other hand shot down 2 MTs and some bombers. So according to that material La-5 semed to have been the most dangerous opponent to MTs of the FAF and Yak-9 and AC appr. equally dangerous. Problem is that IMHO in that book there was not made enough allocation to victories accomplished by GefVB Kuhlmay and by AA 
From a file at our Sota-arkisto, as it was called when I dug the info out:
From 3./HLeLv 34 report on actions during the summer 44. “AC (P-39) is more or less as good as La-5 (at this stage means La-5Fs and FNs) but maybe less manoeuvrable.”

Juha


----------



## Timppa (Jun 24, 2010)

Attached below is the FAF loss list I compiled (against Soviet planes only, not due to AA, accidents, etc.)
It gives a good view of the planes used by the Russians in each time. Also the top units can be distinguished.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 24, 2010)

Interesting chart Timpaa. Interesting that 10 losses are attributed to Hurricanes and 3 to P40's (Tomahawk/Warhawk).


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 24, 2010)

I suspect some, perhaps much, anti-P39 sentiment was due to prejudice.
Not to disregard actual relative performance deficiencies, but it just may be possible that some people were put off by what they considered an unusual, odd layout and different handling characteristics.
Couple that with rampant use of inappropriate tactics in the early part of the war and a bad reputation develops.
It seems part of human nature is resistance to change - perhaps the P-39 was just expecting too much of people.
I imagine if the P-39 offered outstanding performance these prejudices would have been more easily overcome. But for many, they'd just rather have a P-40 than that plane with a rear engine, a shaft running under your arse, and car doors/windows.
Perhaps the Soviets learned to adapt and accept the P-39, maybe even embrace it, and they profited because of that.


----------



## Timppa (Jun 24, 2010)

claidemore said:


> Interesting chart Timpaa. Interesting that 10 losses are attributed to Hurricanes and 3 to P40's (Tomahawk/Warhawk).



I should not answer to people who cannot even spell my name right, but 

Eventually the P-40 was a quite rare bird at the Finnish front, it was more frequent opponent to the JG-5.
Hurricane was much more common in 1942, and the 152 IAP seems to have been a quite good outfit.
Too few numbers to make any conclusions , IMO. 
FAF claimed some 1500+ victories, I listed about 100 losses , so you should not make any rash conclusions.

Edit: Some of those those airmen listed survived; parachuted or crash-landed.
But most of them perished. So it is my measly tribute to them.


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 24, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> I suspect some, perhaps much, anti-P39 sentiment was due to prejudice.



I'd agree with that based on typical responses i see whenever the Soviet exp is brought up. Its always easier to blame the machine than the man. Its a pride issue.


----------



## JoeB (Jun 24, 2010)

RCAFson said:


> 1) The P40 in Commonwealth service saw first combat against the Vichy AF in Syria.
> 
> Again, you present the fiction that Malta based Hurricanes were facing a single staffel of Me109s , In Feb-May '41, when you know full well that other staffels participated in that time frame and that the Me109 flew missions where RA fighters were also present in large numbers, and the Hurricanes, were typically outnumbered at least 3-1, when operating from a base about 70 miles from Luftwaffe/RA bases in Sicily, unlike the DAF where the situation was fluid.
> 
> ...


1. Introduced over Syria and North Africa at virtually the same time, and I said 'introduced over NA in June' which is correct. Hurricanes also faced Italian fighters over Malta, but the Desert Air Force also faced Italian fighters over North Africa. Malta in 1941 was simply not the 'first line Axis oppostion' and 'North Africa the second line opposition' as you stated. That's simply wrong.
2. It's not a question of Lundstrom v me, actually read his books, and read "Guadalcanal" by Richard Frank which more completely covers the air campaign, the Lundstrom books are about the Navy's F4F units. As I said, at first Zeroes operated directly from Vunakanau to G'canal, but within weeks had divert bases closer than that, and after October had Buin only around 300 miles from Henderson. Also a lot of Zero v F4F combats were carrier based on both sides, and had about the same kill ratio as G'canal defense, around 1:1, vastly, vastly different from Hurricane's record (0:35) v 109E's from Malta, as well as Hurricanes much, not a little bit, poorer results v Japanese Zeroes and Type 1's all the way through 1943. We're not discussing a small difference, and as I asked on other thread, how much worse than that could F4F's have possibly done than 0:35? and no reason to believe they wouldn't be competitive with Italian fighters or lethal v bombers. I'm not saying they would have scored a 1:1 ratio v LW 109 units, everyone fair knows I never said that (I don't know what that outcome would be exactly, just seems clear the F4F would be a credible substitute, the term I've repeatedly used).

Good you're trying to learn about Darwin campaigns at least, but you *MUST* consult two-sided references, claims by the Alliedsin those campaigns are almost completely unreliable and I'm not basing anything on them. Also you're cherry picking here. The only successful combat by Spitfire V's v Zeroes (May 10 1943) had the Spits surprising Zeroes on the deck strafing an airfield (downed 2 Zeroes for 1 Spit written off to combat damage, half the Zeores downed by the Spits in the campaign). The Spits outnumbered the Zero escorts in every engagement over Darwin. And February 1942 carrier raid on Darwin was before the few defenders had any radar warning, which was set up in March 1942. You're also completely ignoring the fact that the Spit campaign was a whole year later in the attrition of JNAF fighter pilots; the 3rd/202nd had lost pilots it forwarded to units at Rabaul to fly over G'canal in fall of '42, as well as losses on its own operations earlier in 1942. There's no way anyone objective could say the Spit showed itself superior to the P-40 in the campaigns defending Darwin; in other cases yes, but the point remains the Soviet verdict on Spit V was not bizzarrely surprising: in some circumstances the Spitfire V's weaknesses outweighed its strengths v more rugged a/c like the P-39/40.

Re: Nikademus, Baeza himself seems a good English speaker (he posts on J-aircraft sometimes) but I don't know of any plan for an English version of "Soleil Levant". Another really good recent Pac War air book "Samourai sur Porte Avions", about JNAF carrier ops, is by the same publishers, Lela Press, different author.

Joe


----------



## VG-33 (Jun 24, 2010)

Hello

From Vladimir Kotelnikov, Fanatique de l'aviation n° 451, June 2007



> Shortround6 said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't say they found any used P-39s until later in the article when they specifically mention a used aircraft arriving later than the initial shipments. Of Britain's initial order 212 were shipped directly to the Soviet Union and 179 were released to the US before leaving America. That leaves only the 79-80 (minus crashes, hacks and instructional airframes) that would have been available for reshipment to Russia as "used" aircraft. A small amount compared to the hundreds of early P-39s the Russians did get.
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> I suspect some, perhaps much, anti-P39 sentiment was due to prejudice.
> Not to disregard actual relative performance deficiencies, but it just may be possible that some people were put off by what they considered an unusual, odd layout and different handling characteristics.......I imagine if the P-39 offered outstanding performance these prejudices would have been more easily overcome.



The British, who were the first to actually try to fly it in combat, felt that they had been deceived about it's actual performance. Put that together with trying to debug a new aircraft with a lot of problems and said aircraft doesn't really do anything that other available aircraft won't already do and it is not hard to figure out why they passed on the P-39. 

Americans used bad tactics and persisted in overloading the plane. Add in the serviceability issues of the early models and the plane's lack of range, hard to go the offensive with it the Pacific or Europe from British bases, and one can see why the P-39 wasn't a favorite of the war planners. 

Early American P-39s either had the 20mm, which may have had problems of it's own and only had a 60 rd drum, or had the 37mm, which in early versions had a defective ejection chute which caused numerous jams, usually after just a couple of shots. By the time the electrical system was sorted out and the armament issues resolved and the engines officially allowed to use WEP ratings, other fighters were becoming available in quantity for US forces. 

P-39s in US service suffered from bad timing. Committed to combat with unresolved electrical/ mechanical issues, with insufficient support, using bad tactics and flown by mostly green pilots it is little wonder they failed to make a good impression. 

While few in numbers how did the Free French and Italian pilots make out with them in 1943-44?


----------



## Juha (Jun 24, 2010)

Hello Timppa
thanks a lot.
Our figures seemed to agree, mine were only for summer 44 in LeR 3 area, Karelian Isthmus, which was the main front during the summer 44, yours are for the whole front. One clearly see, that during the summer 44 the La-5s of 159 IAP were the most dangerous opponents to MTs of the FAF, they also killed the highest ranking aces of FAF lost during summer 44, Saarinen and Nissinen, even if death of Nissinen was only indirectly caused by a pilot of 159 IAP. Also it is clearly seen that the ACs of 773 IAP were pain in the ass to FAF pilots in Syväri/Svir front.

Juha

Addition: I had more time to look Timppa’s list, in it there are 2 more 109s lost to La-5s than in my list, Trontti, which in LeR 3 book was lost by unknown reason is in FAF VI book allocated to a La-5 pilot, I really should check from interrogation papers what Trontti told when he came back from Soviet imprisonment, the other is Nissinen, which is a bit complicated case, Sarjamo was clearly shot down by a La-5 above clouds but Nissinen was killed when, while flying just under cloudbase, his plane was hit by downwards plunging parts of Sarjamo’s plane


----------



## Nikademus (Jun 24, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> P-39s in US service suffered from bad timing. Committed to combat with unresolved electrical/ mechanical issues, with insufficient support, using bad tactics and flown by mostly green pilots it is little wonder they failed to make a good impression.



and it wasn't just in the Pacific either. During the Tunisia campaign the 39's suffered heavily losing 21 to the Luftwaffe fighters with no return kills. Gotta give credit where credit is due IMHO. The Russians made the most out the plane, and showed that it wasn't a hopeless design.


----------



## claidemore (Jun 24, 2010)

Timppa: two p's, one a, got it!


----------



## RCAFson (Jun 27, 2010)

JoeB said:


> Good you're trying to learn about Darwin campaigns at least, but you *MUST* consult two-sided references, claims by the Alliedsin those campaigns are almost completely unreliable and I'm not basing anything on them. Also you're cherry picking here. The only successful combat by Spitfire V's v Zeroes (May 10 1943) had the Spits surprising Zeroes on the deck strafing an airfield (downed 2 Zeroes for 1 Spit written off to combat damage, half the Zeores downed by the Spits in the campaign). The Spits outnumbered the Zero escorts in every engagement over Darwin. And February 1942 carrier raid on Darwin was before the few defenders had any radar warning, which was set up in March 1942. You're also completely ignoring the fact that the Spit campaign was a whole year later in the attrition of JNAF fighter pilots; the 3rd/202nd had lost pilots it forwarded to units at Rabaul to fly over G'canal in fall of '42, as well as losses on its own operations earlier in 1942. There's no way anyone objective could say the Spit showed itself superior to the P-40 in the campaigns defending Darwin; in other cases yes, but the point remains the Soviet verdict on Spit V was not bizzarrely surprising: in some circumstances the Spitfire V's weaknesses outweighed its strengths v more rugged a/c like the P-39/40.



I don't want to belabour this, but the simple fact is that 50 P40s versus 9 Zeros and 24 bombers. with the IJAF at 14-16000ft is a completely different tactical situation from 34 Spitfires versus 27 Zeros and 18 bombers with the IJAF at 27-31000ft. The P40s had a 5.5 to 1 advantage in numbers over the escort...I am still amazed how you can simply ignore these facts and continue to spout the nonsense that somehow the P40 and Spitfire defence of Darwin is comparable and gives us comparable data on the Spitfire and P40 versus the Zero. Do you honestly believe that if the April 25 1942 raid had been intercepted by 50 Spitfires, that they wouldn't have done better than the P40s? 

In fact both the USAAF (which used the Spitfire and P39 in the same theatre) and RAF considered the P39 to be unsuitable as an interceptor/air superiority fighter and very inferior to the Spitfire.


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2010)

Its a digression I admit but can anyone recommend a good book on the fighting over Darwin. I keep hearing different details and would like to look into it in more detail.

Any suggestions would be appreciated


----------



## Wildcat (Jun 28, 2010)

"Spitfires over Darwin" by Jim Grant or "Darwin's air war" by Bob Alford are both good.


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2010)

Thanks for the titles, much appreciated.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 31, 2010)

davebender said:


> They was free. Just like P-40s, Sherman tanks, M3 light tanks, M7 SP artillery etc.





buffnut453 said:


> IIRC the P-39s were ordered before Lend Lease was approved so the UK paid for the whole batch irrespective of what happened to it.



Yes that's correct



Shortround6 said:


> The British, who were the first to actually try to fly it in combat, felt that they had been deceived about it's actual performance. Put that together with trying to debug a new aircraft with a lot of problems and said aircraft doesn't really do anything that other available aircraft won't already do and it is not hard to figure out why they passed on the P-39.
> 
> Americans used bad tactics and persisted in overloading the plane. Add in the serviceability issues of the early models and the plane's lack of range, hard to go the offensive with it the Pacific or Europe from British bases, and one can see why the P-39 wasn't a favorite of the war planners.
> 
> ...



Yes indeed, I thought this thread was about the P-39, where did all the P-40's Spits come from? 

Anyways, there's something I've always wondered, the main knock on the P-39 (apart from some early maintainance bugs) was the lack of the supercharger that the US model had. Couldn't the British manufacture their own S-chargers to make the plane more useful at high altutudes?


----------



## Juha (Jul 31, 2010)

P-39 had a supercharger as at least almost all WWII fighters, but it did not have turbosupercharger or twostage mechanical like Spitfires from Mk VII onwards, not sure on Mk VI.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2010)

freebird said:


> Anyways, there's something I've always wondered, the main knock on the P-39 (apart from some early maintainance bugs) was the lack of the supercharger that the US model had. Couldn't the British manufacture their own S-chargers to make the plane more useful at high altutudes?



the main problem with the P-39 was a lack of space or volume. There wasn't enough space for more fuel and there wasn't enough space for a better supercharger (not one that would really change the performance anyway) and the inter-cooler it would need. 

The later P-63 had a fuselage about 2 feet longer than the P-39 in order to accommodate a 2 stage supercharger and while this set up wasn't as compact as the Merlin two stage it also didn't have an inter-cooler.


----------



## Freebird (Jul 31, 2010)

Juha said:


> P-39 had a supercharger as at least almost all WWII fighters, but it did not have turbosupercharger or twostage mechanical like Spitfires from Mk VII onwards, not sure on Mk VI.



The reference I have lists the version exported to the UK ( rejected) as being without a supercharger. 

Did the later versions (like P-39N or Q) still have a single stage S-charger?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 31, 2010)

freebird said:


> The reference I have lists the version exported to the UK ( rejected) as being without a supercharger.
> 
> Did the later versions (like P-39N or Q) still have a single stage S-charger?



Unfortunately, many aviation writers can't seem to tell the difference between a supercharged engine and one with a special supercharger set up, like turbo or mechanical two stage or multi-speed or what ever.

ALL Allison engines except a few early ones intended for airships had superchargers. 

In fact EVERY SINGLE aircraft engine of WW II that made over 500hp had a supercharger. 

The problem for the British was that when they were "sold" the P-39 the performance figures they were given were from the prototype that had an engine driven supercharger fed from a turbocharger for a two stage system. There is some controversy as to wither the prototype ever posted the high numbers to begin with or if they were estimates. In any case the prototype didn't have any guns, or armor or self sealing tanks. 
Needless to say, performance of the combat ready (?) production versions was well below the performance promised. 

Later P-39s had a higher gear ratio on the supercharger which did allow them to carry the nominal military power of 1125-1150hp several thousand feet higher than earlier versions.


----------

