Goering was also involved. Since the twin engined bombers were increasingly used at night, his thinking for fighter pilots was "since you couldnt protect the bombers, you can drop the bombs yourself".
Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)
- Thread starter greybeard
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
buffnut453
Captain
Sheesh...you really are the master of cherry-picking information and twisting it to suit your agenda while ignoring anything that contradicts you. Some selected quotes from you:
Sounds to me like the British fighters had a very hard time over 25000'...both British fighters had a very difficult time getting over 25000'. Please define "very hard time" or "very difficult time". You seem to imply that the Spitfire and Hurricane couldn't get up to those altitudes, despite the body of evidence that has been thrown at you, including official test reports, that show that they could. The statement said that the Spitfire and Hurricane of 1940 weren't satisfactory above 25,000ft. That does NOT mean they struggled to climb above that altitude. It simply means that they were lacking in capability to deal adequately with the threat, which is precisely why Spitfire development continued and the operational altitude progressively increased throughout its lifetime. However, as has been shown multiple times, the Spitfire in particular conducted many operations in the range 25-30,000ft during the BoB.
And a bomb-laden 109E could not get over 25000'. Great, but what about the escorting Me109 fighters? Again, the full report talks about how the Luftwaffe sent large numbers of fighters, operating above the Me109 bombers as both close escorts and in advanced fighter sweeps to engage the RAF fighters. Remember that the Luftwaffe was trying to gain air superiority. The only way to do that was to destroy Fighter Command. The Me109 bombers were largely just a nuisance effort to get the RAF committed to the fight in hopes that more Hurricanes and Spitfires could be shot down.
Why would the British even worry about 109Es at those heights? The 109E bombers couldn't hit anything with any accuracy from that altitude so they were doing minimal if any damage. Because role of Fighter Command was defence of UK airspace. Your laissez-faire attitude regarding "minimal damage" completely ignores the fact that any bomb dropped over a major British town or city would result in civilian casualties. Fighter Command was expressly charged with preventing such attacks to minimize civilian casualties.
The goal of the British interceptors was to destroy enemy bombers, not chase after fighters. And this has been explained multiple times before. Yes, the RAF wanted to destroy the bombers. However, focusing exclusively on the bombers and ignoring the escorting Luftwaffe fighters would have resulted in unsustainable casualties. Again, if you let the adversary have the altitude in an air battle, you give him the advantage. If the RAF ignored the Luftwaffe escort, it would cede the tactical advantage and abrogate Fighter Command's responsibility to defend UK airspace.
This was all only during the last month of the BoB (October). Please see my post 2101. How many sorties above 25,000ft were in September and how many in October? Yet again you're making a sweeping statement that is inaccurate, ignoring all evidence that doesn't fit your narrative.
I still don't see much fighting at 30000' and nothing over that height. And for absolutely sure no 109E bombers were at that height. Because you're deliberately ignoring the evidence that's been presented. This whole part of the discussion grew out of yet another of your incorrect assertions where you stated there was no difference between air combat in Eastern Europe vs Western Europe prior to 1943 (your post 1899). Other contributors have provided abundant evidence that the BoB fight was very different from that over Russia, not least in terms of the altitude of operations. Since that information doesn't fit your preconceived notions, you are ignoring it and arguing the toss about nit-picking details. Bottom line: over Russia, the fight was typically below 23,000ft while in the BoB many of the engagements started above 25,000ft.
Do you realise you are nit picking and pettifogging with Dowding and Park, who I am sure would have loved your expertise but are sadly no longer with us. Regarding the bold part, you should add "in the time provided". As a man who loves his charts you can look at a chart of a Spitfire Mk I and Mk II and find the rate of climb above 15,000ft and 20,000ft and 25,000ft. When the rate of climb is 100ft min it takes 10 minutes to climb 1,000 ft, at 180MPH a plane has done 30miles in 10 minutes, it is 70 miles from Dover to the outskirts of London.
A Hurricane MkI could get to 30,000ft but it took 18 minutes and at 30,000ft its RoC was 570ft min. No where near good enough to stop these attacks. Hurricane Mk I Performance
Edit to take account of MikeMeech's post A squadron of Spitfires took 27 minutes to get to 30,000 ft, it doesnt take a Bf109 27 minutes to fly from Calais to London.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
I am at a complete loss as to why we are even talking about the ceiling of a fighter carrying a bomb. The whole intent of carrying a bomb is to drop it on something you want to damage. All else is unimportant unless the bomb-carrying fighter gets attacked by another fighter. Then, he drops the bomb and fights ... or he dies.
Fighter versus fighter combat didn't involve bomb-carrying airplanes. If the fighters were NOT carrying bombs, then even a Spitfire Mk IA had a service ceiling of 34,400 feet (10,485 m) and really didn't have any trouble getting to over 30,000 feet, regardless of P-39 Expert's claims. The Spitfire Mk I went into service in Aug 1938, so it was around when the war broke out. The Mk II went into service in Sep 1941.
So, the Spitfires COULD and DID get over 30,000 feet.
Carrying a bomb or not for the Bf 109 was irrelevant.
Fighter versus fighter combat didn't involve bomb-carrying airplanes. If the fighters were NOT carrying bombs, then even a Spitfire Mk IA had a service ceiling of 34,400 feet (10,485 m) and really didn't have any trouble getting to over 30,000 feet, regardless of P-39 Expert's claims. The Spitfire Mk I went into service in Aug 1938, so it was around when the war broke out. The Mk II went into service in Sep 1941.
So, the Spitfires COULD and DID get over 30,000 feet.
Carrying a bomb or not for the Bf 109 was irrelevant.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 40,281
- Mar 26, 2007
No i am not so, there is no "we" I do understand someone is a bit pig headed but it does draw as i said before people to the books. I do like the p-39 and it did do good service for all reasons discussed and it is not even remotely in the same league as Spitfires FW190 or at most airframes at the time. That said, i did learn a lot from it. Why and why not.
So please could you not use the "We" in this? Thanks.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 40,281
- Mar 26, 2007
It also is a good cheap way to keep the other guy not letting his assets being used for other things than defence. Even almost dead battle ships need a great deal of attention. Ask the RAF.
These Jabo raids stopped when the RAF started leaning into France, so instead of the LW losing pilots over UK the RAF started losing them over France.
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 40,281
- Mar 26, 2007
Nuisance raids did continue i think well into 1944. And what is your time frame? RAF started leaning into France during and after BoB. Got shot down a lot but leaning anyway. Not countering these raids. They did shoot planes down but it also did keep a force down on Britain. And that is the point i make.
Hi
For information, Park did concern himself on climb rates for squadrons, in Instruction No. 28 he has details of a single squadron plus the extra time taken by two or three squadrons in wings. He stresses the importance of getting a single squadron up to intercept and for the controllers not to wait to get the whole formation up to height.
Mike
Excellent post, showing clearly how much research Park put into the issue. Its the first time I have seen the different rates of climb for individual planes, squadrons and pairs of squadrons and groups quantified. In fact he wasnt interested in the performance of an individual aeroplane, he knew about a Hurricane MkI because he had one as his own transport, he was interested in the "average performance of a good squadron".
Last edited:
By "These Jabo raids" I just meant the Bf109 high altitude raids in 1940. I was actually agreeing with your point about occupying assets.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
If one doesn't want to read the writing on the brick wall, don't open this thread; I think by now everyone knows what this involves -- a lot of cherry-picking stubbornness, accompanied by a wealth of information about why that might be wrong.
I open this thread because I am learning an awful lot of stuff. So long as I put
P-39 Expert
's comments into the context of his bias, I can learn something from even them. I hope he keeps working this thread so that I can learn stuff.
I open this thread because I am learning an awful lot of stuff. So long as I put
P-39 Expert
's comments into the context of his bias, I can learn something from even them. I hope he keeps working this thread so that I can learn stuff.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,266
- Jan 31, 2021
For the same reason the Germans worried about British bombers in 1941.
This has been going on for years not months and not just in this thread, nothing new gets posted by our expert but he is prepared to dismiss anyone and everyone who doesnt agree with his opinion, he hasnt reached Churchill yet but is just a few steps below at Dowding and Park, most it is driven by a dislike of the British who he holds responsible for the P-39 not being seen as the best fighter of WW2.If one doesn't want to read the writing on the brick wall, don't open this thread; I think by now everyone knows what this involves -- a lot of cherry-picking stubbornness, accompanied by a wealth of information about why that might be wrong.
I open this thread because I am learning an awful lot of stuff. So long as I put
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Because you post bullshit and this site is about the exchange/discussion of historical points, not War Thunder fantasy trippin'.
That's why.
Thumpalumpacus
Major
I gathered that much. I did see that the staff recently asked him to focus his P-39 discussion into this thread, and I think that's fair, unless the Airacobra is a legitimate factor in another discussion, and he doesn't start rehashing his biases there as well as here.
That way, people know to don their hip-waders before opening this thread, and don't get taken by surprise in so many other useful ones.
For those new to the forum it is hard to explain how much my back hurt putting those fuel tanks in then taking them out, taking the wing guns out and putting them in again. The worst part was fitting the extra external fuel tank and the bomb in the same place, it gave the range and firepower needed for a fighter bomber but was actually a complete impossibility. Our expert is much more of an expert now than he was when he first started posting, because he has been educated by people who actually know more than he does about the P-39 and I am not one of them.
wuzak
Captain
The MK II was being deployed in 1940, certainly by September 1940. The Mk V was arriving in early 1941.
A Spitfire I with Merlin II and fixed pitch propeller using 87 octane fuel could get over 30,000ft in late 1938/early 1939.
Absolute ceiling estimated to be 32,800ft, height reached on test 32,400ft.
Spitfire Mk I K.9787 Trials Report
Spitfire Performance Testing, wartime flight trials and reports of Spitfire aircraft. Spitfire Mk I data.
www.spitfireperformance.com
With a 2 pitch airscrew the absolute ceiling went up to 35,500ft. Greatest height reached on test, 32,700ft.
Spitfire Mk I K.9793 Trials Report
Spitfire Performance Testing, wartime flight trials and reports of Spitfire aircraft. Spitfire Mk I data.
www.spitfireperformance.com
With 2 pitch airscrew and two 20mm cannon fitted a Spitfire I had an estimated service ceiling of 34,500ft
Spitfire Mk I L.1007 Trials Report
Spitfire Performance Testing, wartime flight trials and reports of Spitfire aircraft. Spitfire Mk I data.
www.spitfireperformance.com
Those last 2 were in July 1939.
Spitfire I with constant speed prop had roughly the same ceiling, but improved the rate of climb at 30,000ft from 470ft/min (Merlin III, 2 pitch prop) and 325 ft/min (Merlin II, fixed pitch prop) to 660ft/min.
Spitfire Mk I N.3171 Trials Report
Spitfire Performance Testing, wartime flight trials and reports of Spitfire aircraft. Spitfire Mk I data.
www.spitfireperformance.com
AFAK the new factory at Castle Bromwich only produced MkIIs so its production marks the start of its introduction into the RAF starting as you say around August September 1940 depending on what is regarded as in service or in combat etc. Into the RAF doesnt mean it was delivered to Manston, generally squadrons away from the front line equipped with a new type and then were moved to the front line as a unit.
Last edited:
