Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

what can I say except to view LW gun cam footage late war and witness the terrible destructive power of said weapon on B-17/B-24's. the LW said from the very beginning this was a close in to engage weapon to assure maximum firepower and effectiveness
 
Although it couldn't get up to altitude fast or could maneuver at high altitudes good, the P-39 could usually take out most Luftwaffe bombers with a single 37mm shell and had many machine guns to boot
 
hmm, the P-39´s 37mm M9 has a comparably low muzzle velocity as the MK 108 but only 140 rpm rate of fire (instead of 600 to 850 for the MK 108). In top of this, the M37 has less explosive cavity, so I would rate it inferior to the MK 108 in the bomber killing role.
It´s not such a lightweight weapon, too...
 
Erich said:
and what is your basis for P-39's attacking LW bombers ?

fighter vs fighter yes but most importantly ground attack for that crate
Click to expand...
Apparently that's a myth... The P-39 was used as a fighter and not as a ground attack aircraft. Of course it could be used that way but apparently not more than other fighters.

On the other side, many P-39s were rearmed with 20mm guns... though that may have been only during the early stages.


Kris
 
" ... On the other side, many P-39s were rearmed with 20mm guns... though that may have been only during the early stages..."

Not really, Civettone. The one's with 20's were P-400's that the British had ordered and found not to their wanting and passed on to the Soviets - who no doubt may have swapped the Hispanos with a 20 of their own. But mostly what the Russians did was REMOVE wing guns. Concentrating on the 37 and the 2 50's.

MM
 
If the P-38 had been fitted with a pair of M4 37mm cannon it would have been the perfect bomber interceptor IMO.
 
The P-39 was called the Flying Dog for good reason by those that got stuck flying it. While it may have been decently armed, it was a pig to fly.
The best bomber attack aircraft of the war was the FW-190. Sturdy enough that if you ran out of gun and cannon rounds, you could ram the bomber as a last resort and have some chance of surviving.
 
The P-38 really had a lot of potential, if we had needed a bomber killer for big bombers, the Lightning could have had some really impressive armament nose-mounted.
 
"..The P-39 was called the Flying Dog for good reason by those that got stuck flying it. While it may have been decently armed, it was a pig to fly."

The Russians didn't think so, Carbon, and neither did Chuck Yeager.

Providing top cover for Sturmaviks, flying from fields 20 miles behind the front, the Airacobra was a HOT plane with a deadly gun at 100 meters.

MM
 
the P-39 used by the Soviets was used for close ground support, a few yes and I mean a few pilots were good enough to tangle with the Lw in the air. as to being armed with heavier caliber cannon the point is useless when closing in to ensure a kill that you don;t get entrapped with debris off your victim plus having the heavier up to two 37mm's ? point is the uselessness in maneuvering in a dogfight with your foes escorts.

the SturmFw was the supreme Viermotötter but proved it's probs with P-51's after the carry through a US bomber formation
 
You're right Michael. I reread the story from Joe Baugher and it did relate to the P-400 as well as post-war.

As to Erich's claim. I'll just copy paste the following:

It is in Soviet service that the Airacobra was used to its best effect. Soviet Air Force military doctrine was that its primary mission was to support the ground operations of the Soviet Army, and the P-39 was a natural for this role since it had an excellent low altitude performance and was heavily armed. Contrary to many published reports, the Soviet Airacobra was not primarily used as a ground-attack aircraft and tank buster, although it is certainly true that it often strafed targets of opportunity. It was actually primarily used as a low-altitude escort fighter for ground attack aircraft such as the Il-2 and later the Il-10.

The Airacobra was quite popular with its Russian pilots, who appreciated its heavy armament, its excellent low-altitude performance, and its ability to absorb an incredible amount of battle damage. When operating at low altitudes, the Airacobra was often able to hold its own against top-of-the-line German fighters. Some Soviet pilots felt that the P-39 outclassed even the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Focke Wulf FW 190 at altitudes below 10,000 feet. Some of the users of the type were Guard (ie. elite) Fighter Regiments 16 GIAP, 19 GIAP, 21 GIAP, 72 GIAP, 100 GIAP, 213 GIAP (previously 508 IAP) and Fighter Regiments 196 IAP, 255 IAP, 508 IAP (later 213 GIAP).

Several Soviet Airacobra aces are known. Lieutenant Colonel of the Guards Alexander I. Pokryshin, a Soviet ace with 59 kills to his credit, scored 48 of these in a P-39. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross by President Roosevelt. There are eight other P-39 pilots with at least 20 kills. Among top Airacobra aces were Grigorii A Rechkalov (44 kills) , Nikolai D Gulayev (36 kills), Ivan I Babak, Aleksandr F Klubov, Andrei I Trud, and the brothers Boris B Glinka and Dmitrii B Glinka

Airacobras in the Soviet Union

Kris
 
Thanks, Kris. I get very tired at the endless slagging of the P-39. There were lots of Soviet Airacobra aces and it was probably as forgiving to fly in combat as any Soviet fighter. It wasn't the fighter that the British or Americans needed - even with high altitude performance it would have had very short legs - but it was what the Russians needed in the unique conditions on the Eastern Front. Deserves more respect IMHO

MM
 
Last edited:
Erich, I was more referring to what you said about the P-39 being used by the Soviets for close ground support which was not true. Mainly as a fighter and used for ground attacks when needed... just like any other Russian fighter.


Kris
 
if we're talking about kill / death ratio, surely a german night fighter has to take gold.

problem is, history is whats been reported by those considerably removed from the concept of free or accurate speech due to agendas, so I'm thinking there are those little diamonds of truth forever buried under the avalanche of Victors Propaganda.

its anyones guess. You might as well ask for the most effective fighter, pound for pound all things considered.

youll just get a question answered by a million more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
S
Request help identifying type of Bomber aircraft
Replies
3
Views
881
SaparotRob
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Barrett
B
S
Researching German Aircraft Armor; Actual Use & Accounts
Replies
2
Views
218
sopwith21
S
Menu
Log in
Register