Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)

[buffnut453]

Ok...going back to the "BoB never got close to 30,000ft" nonsense.

I took a quick look at a copy of 92 Sqn's Operations Record Book for the months of September and October. As one would expect, the details are somewhat patchy, and there are many events that have sparse details of the altitudes of the combatants. However, even this cursory glance revealed 13 missions where Sqn pilots reported flying operational sorties in excess of 25,000 ft or encountered enemy aircraft flying at those altitudes. For the record, they are listed below:

3 Sep – Patrol Cardiff 30K ft

9 Sep – Patrol Dungenness 26K ft engaged Me109s, patrol Canterbury 26K ft

11 Sep – Patrol base 28K ft

18 Sep – Southend 30K ft, Folkstone/Dover 27K ft

19 Sep – Patrol Base 30K ft, Patrol Manston 30K ft

20 Sep – Dungenness, 27K ft, attacked by Me109s

27 Sep – Sevenoaks, engagement 18K ft but Me109s layered an estimated 8K ft above

30 Sep – Brighton, 27K ft – sighted 30 x Me109s above, one Me109 claimed, and 15 bombers approx. 10K ft below

20 Oct – East of Tunbridge Wells, patrol 15K ft sighed EA at about 30K ft. Climbed squadron and completed successful engagement. Claimed 1x Me110 shot down

25 Oct – Sevenoaks, two squadrons of Spitfires engaged 70+ Me109s at 26K ft


Were such sorties a daily occurrence? Clearly not, and nobody in the thread has tried to claim that they were. However, I don't think 13 recorded events over a 2-month period is particularly rare. Also note that many of these reports weren't just one or two aircraft, they were whole squadrons or even larger formations.

The entry for 20 Oct is particularly interesting because the engagement started at 15K ft but the Sqn climbed to 30K ft to effect a successful interception.

This is just one Spitfire squadron in all of Fighter Command so performance may vary for other squadrons...however, it suggests (to me) that high-altitude intercepts were not uncommon.

I'm sure P-39 Expert will disagree and continue claiming that these were rare events, or that these records aren't accurate because they're just "ordinary joe" pilots. Of course "rare" is a relative term but, given the growing body of evidence, it suggests to me that his claim about the BoB getting "nowhere near 30,000ft" is entirely bogus.

 

[GrauGeist]

Good work. But, these are still pilot accounts. Mostly 109s diving from reportedly 30000'. One Spitfire's windshield was frozen. Not only almost impossible to get to 30000' but if you did get there you had problems like this. Park's defenders were equally at ease at their optimum height of 27000'? That was the combat ceiling for a Spitfire I per wwiiaircraftperformance. And 27000' isn't 30000'.

What I don't understand is we all pretty much agree that the LW bombers came in at 16000'-20000', right? And the 109Es were required to provide close escort. Close escort is not 10000'-14000' higher than the bombers. All the night fighting, convoy and channel fighting, attacking the airfields, none of that could possibly have been at 30000'.

We've found five possible instances, less than that for Spitfires, all pilot accounts comparable to victory claims, probably highly exaggerated. It can't be definitively proven that planes did operate at 30000' in the BoB, nor can it be definitively proven that they didn't. All I'm saying is if it did actually happen it was a very rare occurrence. The equipment just wouldn't do it.

God Almighty, will you freakin' stop?

You've been provided several solid accounts to verify the high altitude actions and you dismiss it as a few isolated cases.

At this point, you could be provided every single action report from combat over the UK and you'd still find a lame-ass excuse to weasel out of your flawed position.

Stop while you're ahead and move on to something else, FFS.

 

[buffnut453]

God Almighty, will you freakin' stop?

You've been provided several solid accounts to verify the high altitude actions and you dismiss it as a few isolated cases.

At this point, you could be provided every single action report from combat over the UK and you'd still find a lame-ass excuse to weasel out of your flawed position.

Stop while you're ahead and move on to something else, FFS.

I'm keen to see how he responds to my last couple of posts. I keep hoping that we can steer this thread back to a more profitable discussion...but I'm not holding my breath.

P-39 Expert is trying to bust a perceived myth but, unfortunately, he's so focused on that goal that he won't listen to any other arguments. Anyone who offers a contrary view is "drinking the kool aid" using old, out-of-date information, and any solid evidence that justifies those contrary views is ignored or downplayed (e.g. intercepts at 30,000ft during the BoB).

I'm afraid this has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory where an individual has "new information" that proves everyone else is wrong, and any contrary views are simply dismissed or ignored. It's a self-justifying echo-chamber with no interest in an actual educated, fact-based debate about the merits or otherwise of the case.

 

[GrauGeist]

I am simply amazed at how hard data is so easily dismissed.

And not just one or two posts providing sound facts, but pages worth.

It's almost as if he's working in concert with that ljadw person, who seems to be a bit more persistent with their own version of history...

 

[buffnut453]

Did anyone specify them ever? They may have been used but specified means that is a preference.

I know...but this whole dive into the rabbit-hole of P-39 heaters derived from the comment P-39 Expert made that the use of a gas heater was evidence that the British tried to increase the weight of the P-400 unnecessarily, in this case because the P-39 already had sufficient heating capability and didn't need an additional gas heater.

The whole thrust of my argument is that the gas heater wasn't an additional item specified by the British. It was part of the Bell P-39 design as evidenced by its inclusion in the P-39C, the U.S. variant that immediately preceded the P-400. Hence the British simply adopted an extant design. They didn't ask for anything different when it came to cockpit heating.

I'm grateful to S Shortround6 for the details he's uncovered on this particular topic. Alas, I'm not convinced his efforts will put a nail in the coffin of the "great Bell heater conspiracy of 1940".

 

[GregP]

Maybe this is the same guy who was insisting on a "thrust column" some 10 years ago or so ... I forget his username at this point.

 

[buffnut453]

Good work. But, these are still pilot accounts. Mostly 109s diving from reportedly 30000'. One Spitfire's windshield was frozen. Not only almost impossible to get to 30000' but if you did get there you had problems like this. Park's defenders were equally at ease at their optimum height of 27000'? That was the combat ceiling for a Spitfire I per wwiiaircraftperformance. And 27000' isn't 30000'.

What I don't understand is we all pretty much agree that the LW bombers came in at 16000'-20000', right? And the 109Es were required to provide close escort. Close escort is not 10000'-14000' higher than the bombers. All the night fighting, convoy and channel fighting, attacking the airfields, none of that could possibly have been at 30000'.

We've found five possible instances, less than that for Spitfires, all pilot accounts comparable to victory claims, probably highly exaggerated. It can't be definitively proven that planes did operate at 30000' in the BoB, nor can it be definitively proven that they didn't. All I'm saying is if it did actually happen it was a very rare occurrence. The equipment just wouldn't do it.

Please see my post #2101 which provides yet more evidence of high-altitude interceptions and operations during the BoB. Also see J Juha3 posts 2097 and 2098 where ROC for the Spit MkII at 30,000ft was virtually 1000fpm, and provides more examples of high-altitude intercepts during the BoB.

Close escort means you stick around, typically at slower speeds, to protect the bombers. It doesn't necessarily mean you stay close to the altitude of the bombers. Doing so just makes you an additional target to be bounced from above. He who has the height has the battle because altitude (potential energy) can be rapidly turned into kinetic energy. If you're the target at a lower altitude, the only way you can gain kinetic energy is to dive away from the threat...which means the Me109s would abandon the bombers they were trying to protect.

I still take offence at your statement that the pilots reporting these actions were exaggerating their positions. It truly beggars belief that you think a qualified combat pilot can't read an altimeter. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if the engagement was at 25K, 28K, 30K or 32K....all were considerably higher than most engagements over the Russian front (per another of your posts where the "Kuban Stairs" top out at 23K), which is where this entire argument originated.

 

[BiffF15]

UFB.

 

[GrauGeist]

I still take offence at your statement that the pilots reporting these actions were exaggerating their positions.

If you may recall, in another thread, he dismissed my Uncle's unkind sentiments about the P-39, which he actually flew.

So it boils down to ignoring and/or dismissing first-hand accounts if they run contrary to the narrative.

 

[buffnut453]

If you may recall, in another thread, he dismissed my Uncle's unkind sentiments about the P-39, which he actually flew.

So it boils down to ignoring and/or dismissing first-hand accounts if they run contrary to the narrative.

Like I said...all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Good work. But, these are still pilot accounts. Mostly 109s diving from reportedly 30000'. One Spitfire's windshield was frozen. Not only almost impossible to get to 30000' but if you did get there you had problems like this. Park's defenders were equally at ease at their optimum height of 27000'? That was the combat ceiling for a Spitfire I per wwiiaircraftperformance. And 27000' isn't 30000'.

What I don't understand is we all pretty much agree that the LW bombers came in at 16000'-20000', right? And the 109Es were required to provide close escort. Close escort is not 10000'-14000' higher than the bombers. All the night fighting, convoy and channel fighting, attacking the airfields, none of that could possibly have been at 30000'.

We've found five possible instances, less than that for Spitfires, all pilot accounts comparable to victory claims, probably highly exaggerated. It can't be definitively proven that planes did operate at 30000' in the BoB, nor can it be definitively proven that they didn't. All I'm saying is if it did actually happen it was a very rare occurrence. The equipment just wouldn't do it.

Pete Townsend was a pretty well known Spitfire pilot during the BoB and I believe in the post war years. He was an ace and fought in many battles over England and the European continent. If you're skeptical of "pilot's accounts" then why believe your wwiiaircraftperformance bible, after all, the folks who flew those test flights were just "pilots" too - some never saw combat.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well, I'm going back in the corner...(SMH)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Urggg... Why do I torture myself.

https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/centre-for-air-and-space-power-studies/documents1/air-power-review-vol-18-no-2-battle-of-britain-75th-anniversary-special-edition/

Air Power Review, Battle of Britain Edition P 46 "No 11 Group Instructions to Controllers and Analysis"

There are several transcribed memos from Air Vice-Marshal Park. Interesting reading, here's one...

No 11 GROUP INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTROLLERS No 18
From: Air Officer Commanding, No 11 Group, Royal Air Force
To: Group Controllers and Sector Commanders, for Sector Controllers
Date: 11 September 1940
Engagement of Mass Attacks
During the air fighting of the last week, I have noticed the following deficiencies in our control
by Group and Sectors:
A) Individual Squadrons failing to rendezvous as detailed;
B) Individual Squadrons being detailed to big raids;
C) Pairs of Squadrons being placed on patrol too far forward, too low, resulting in their
being attacked by German high fighter screen;
D) Individual Squadrons being given a rendezvous so far forward as to become engaged
before meeting their paired Squadron;
E) Very high raids of between 100 and 150 fighters being allowed to draw up nearly all
the Group prematurely – the bomb raids then approaching about 45 minutes later
when a number of our Squadrons are on the ground refuelling;
F) A persistent tendency of Group Controllers to delay in detailing pairs of Squadrons that
have reached their height and rendezvous on to individual raids or on to a suitable
patrol line across the line of approach;
G) Failing to check Sectors when they report in error less pilots and aircraft effective than
are reported on the evening state of Squadrons.

FRESH INSTRUCTIONS
Very High Enemy Fighters:

2. The Spitfire Squadrons of Hornchurch and Biggin Hill are, in clear weather, to be
detailed in pairs to attack the high fighter screen which is normally between 25,000 and
30,000 feet.
Rendezvous:
3. When the sky is almost completely overcast, Squadrons should rendezvous over an
aerodrome below cloud base, otherwise they should rendezvous high over an aerodrome or
point well in advance of the enemy's raids, in order not to be dived on while still climbing.
Patrol Lines:
4. Whenever it is not possible to get fairly reliable information about the strength, height
and composition of strong incoming raids, fighter Squadrons must be detailed to short patrol
lines, if necessary two Squadrons very high and two Squadrons between 15,000 and 20,000 ft.
Diversions by Enemy Fighters:
5. If it appears that the first wave of raids are high flying fighters, act as follows:
(i) Detail not less than several pairs of Spitfires to fighter screen;
(ii) Get ample Hurricane Squadrons rendezvoused in pairs in the region of
Sector aerodromes;
(iii) Get Northolt and Tangmere Squadrons to Readiness in despatch as wings of
three Squadrons to intercept the enemy's second or third wave, which normally
contains bombers.
State of Preparedness:
6. During the coming months there will be a few days in which cloud conditions
are suitable for the enemy to assemble mass attacks covered by high fighter screen.
Whenever these conditions obtain, we must maintain a higher State of Preparedness,
and fresh instructions to this end have been issued.
(Sgd) K R Park
Air Vice-Marshal
Commanding No 11 Group
Royal Air Force

One more...

No 11 GROUP INSTRUCTIONS TO CONTROLLERS No 26
From: Air Officer Commanding, No 11 Group, Royal Air Force
To: Group Controllers and Sector Commanders, for Sector Controllers
Date: 8 October 1940
Height of Fighter Patrols
The following instruction is issued in amplification of para 3 of Instructions to Controllers
No 25.
2. When a Spitfire Squadron is ordered to Readiness Patrol on the Maidstone Line, its
function is to cover the area Biggin Hill-Maidstone-Gravesend, while the other Squadrons
are gaining their height, and protect them from the enemy high Fighter Screen. The form of
attack, which should be adopted on the high enemy fighters is to dive repeatedly on them
and climb up again each time to regain height.
3. The Squadron is not to be ordered to intercept a Raid during the early stages of the
engagement, but the Sector Controller must keep the Squadron Commander informed as
to the height and direction of approaching raids.
4. The object of ordering the Squadron to patrol at 15,000 feet while waiting on the
Patrol Line for Raids to come inland is to conserve oxygen, and to keep the pilots at a
comfortable height. Pilots must watch this point most carefully, so that they have ample
in hand when they are subsequently ordered to 30,000 feet which is to be done immediately
enemy raids appear to be about to cross our coast.

And finally on P97 from the chapter "'Battle of Britain Despatch' by Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding"

"Time-honoured methods of escort were at first employed. A strong Fighter
formation would fly a mile or so behind and above the Bombers. When the Germans found
that our Fighters could deliver a well-timed attack on the Bombers before the Fighters could
intervene, or when our Fighters attacked front ahead or below, each move was met by a
counter-move on the part of the Germans, so that, in September, Fighter escorts were flying
inside the Bomber formation, others were below, and a series of Fighters stretched upwards
to 30,000 feet or more."

 

[wuzak]

I know...but this whole dive into the rabbit-hole of P-39 heaters derived from the comment P-39 Expert made that the use of a gas heater was evidence that the British tried to increase the weight of the P-400 unnecessarily

About the increasing weight unnecessarily, what is the time line for that?

When did the British specify the extra items? Was it at the same time or after the original order?

What performance did Bell guarantee for the Airacobra I (was to be Caribou I) matching British requirements? Or did the performance guarantee ignore the British requirements and, if so, did Bell neglect to mention the state of the aircraft required to match the guarantee.

When did the British receive their first Airacoba and test it? Did the performance match the guarantee?

When did Lend-Lease com into effect? Was it before or after the "additional items" were added by the British?

Was the Airacobra I fitted with the "useless" wing mounted 0.30" lmgs, or were they fitted with the Browning 0.303", which was the primary weapon of the RAF in the BoB. I believe these are related, but not the same weapon? The Spitfire had 2 wing mounted cannon, which would be superior in firepower to the single 20mm and two synchronised 0.50" hmgs that the expert thinks was sufficient firepower. Why then did the Spitfire continue to carry 4 0.303" mgs as well until 1944 (except a few with 4 20mm cannon)?

Why would the British accept an aircraft that didn't have the equipment that their own fighters had? Items such as self-sealing fuel tanks, armour protection (the P-39's layout may have contributed to it requiring more armour) and IFF? I'm part way through drgondog's book on the P-51B. Reading the sections about the negotiations bewteen the AFPB/BPC and NAA it becomes clear that the same items are being requested for the NA-73.

PS: I am glad that the P-39N of late 1942 had superior performance to the Spitfire V of late 1940.

 

[wuzak]

(Sgd) K R Park
Air Vice-Marshal
Commanding No 11 Group
Royal Air Force

You're quoting Keith Park?

I mean, what would he know about fighters and the Battle Britain?

 

[Greg Boeser]

FlyboyJ,
Park was an administrative hack who clearly neglected to heed the operational capabilities of his charges' equipment, therefore demanding unreasonable and impossible performance from them. No wonder the British lost the battle.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Per Wiki: "From mid September daylight bombing was gradually taken over by Bf109E fighters adapted to take one 250kg (550lb) bomb. They flew at altitudes over 20000'. The raids were intended to carry out precision bombing on military and economic targets, but it was hard to achieve accuracy with the single bomb."

Jeffrey Quill wrote of his combat experience while flying with No. 65 Squadron during this period: "Nearly all of our engagements with 109s took place between 20000' and 25000'."

Most LW raids were at night. No 30000' altitudes there. I continue to maintain that a 109E loaded with a 550lb bomb can't get to 30000' and can't hit anything except the ground. Any combat at 30000' in the BoB was extremely rare. Extremely.

 

[pbehn]

You might want to read this: Battle of Britain - Wikipedia

Per Wiki: "From mid September daylight bombing was gradually taken over by Bf109E fighters adapted to take one 250kg (550lb) bomb. They flew at altitudes over 20000'. The raids were intended to carry out precision bombing on military and economic targets, but it was hard to achieve accuracy with the single bomb."

Most LW raids were at night. No 30000' altitudes there. I continue to maintain that a 109E loaded with a 550lb bomb can't get to 30000' and can't hit anything except the ground. Any combat at 30000' in the BoB was extremely rare. Extremely.

How does that change anything that is posted? If you are over London and you drop a bomb then the ground you hit is called London which was the whole point, you have also made everyone in London take to an air raid shelter.

 

[pbehn]

Pete Townsend was a pretty well known Spitfire pilot during the BoB and I believe in the post war years. He was an ace and fought in many battles over England and the European continent. If you're skeptical of "pilot's accounts" then why believe your wwiiaircraftperformance bible, after all, the folks who flew those test flights were just "pilots" too - some never saw combat.

Townsend is one of very few Spitfire (or other) pilots who is more famous for doing something else, he was the Meghan Markle of his day, having an affair with the queens sister.

 

[Juha3]

Per Wiki: "From mid September daylight bombing was gradually taken over by Bf109E fighters adapted to take one 250kg (550lb) bomb. They flew at altitudes over 20000'. The raids were intended to carry out precision bombing on military and economic targets, but it was hard to achieve accuracy with the single bomb."

Jeffrey Quill wrote of his combat experience while flying with No. 65 Squadron during this period: "Nearly all of our engagements with 109s took place between 20000' and 25000'."

Most LW raids were at night. No 30000' altitudes there. I continue to maintain that a 109E loaded with a 550lb bomb can't get to 30000' and can't hit anything except the ground. Any combat at 30000' in the BoB was extremely rare. Extremely.

If you have a slightest idea what No 11 Group was and where it operated and who Keith Park was, read Flyboyj's message #2,113 and Buffnut453's #2,101 and stop that nonsense.