Brits loved the P-39! (1 Viewer)

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

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

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?

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

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :confused:

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

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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back