Do you really think that was for you to read?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Do you really think that was for you to read?As I have read so many times before from so many of our fellow posters.
So you looked at Baugher pages and missed P-40G and that even the plain P-40s had "Provisions were made for the mounting of one 0.30-inch machine gun in each wing" I do not have a slightest idea, did the USAAC ever utilize this provision. And have you ever wondered why it took so long for Bell to produce a P-39 model with .50 wing armament? After all after the P-400 order the USAAC/USAAF was for a while the main and only customer of Bell before the SU began to receive them in increasing numbers and began demand even more.Joe Baugher says 131 P-40Bs and 193 P-40Cs were produced for the AAF for a grand total of 324 produced. And maybe 60 P-35As. These early P-40s and P-35s represent .4% (that's 4 tenths of one percent) of the 100000 fighters produced by America for the AAF/USN. Totally insignificant by any measure. The rest had 50calMGs/cannon. Except for the P-39.
One could say that all the AAF/USN fighters in combat were armed with 50calMGs and/or cannon, but he would only be 99.96% correct. Except for P-39s.
From what I read that is what a P-40G is. The British asked for 4 x 0.303 wing guns, the US asked for 20 wings and put them on their own P-40s which were called P-40Gs. It said some went to Russia some were retained but didnt give details, didnt even say if "20 wings" were individual or pairs.So you looked at Baugher pages and missed P-40G
How many P-40s with 30calMGs actually got into combat with the AAF/USN? The Mustang I with the 30s was an export model for the British.
Re F4F and F4U: No sh!t Sherlock, you're the one claiming they never had .30's not me. Re F2A: Yes.Original F4F with 30s was a prototype. No operational F4Us had 30s. Did the F2A actually see combat with the USN?
No lamer then trying to remove nose armor and IFF and a host of other equipment to make the plane even more out of balance, at least here the CoG wouldn't be as effed up and 7 .30's with liberal application of tracer would pretty much shred any Japanese aircraft. According to your logic it would be knocking Zeke's down from Henderson to 7 Mile with ease.An Airacobra with 7 30calMGs is absolutely the lamest idea ever.
Name an operational area where the P-39 was flying in that didn't have radar, I'll wait.If you don't have radar at your base then USING IFF is down.right.stupid. Your words, not mine.
No to mention...Post # 1965
"Stop putting words in my mouth. I have never said that the P-39 was able to do the Mustang's job. I have said that P-39s could have escorted B-17/24s in Europe, certainly not as far or as well."
Only difference between air combat in western Europe and eastern Europe was there were no high altitude bombers in Eastern Europe. And those weren't really a force in the west until mid '43. Soviets standard combat formation was the "Kuban Stairs" or "Flying Bookshelves" with a flight (4 planes) at 5000meters (16500ft), a flight at 6000meters (20000ft) and the top flight at 7000meters (23000ft). P-39s could match the LW fighters up to 8000meters (26400ft) with neither side willing to go much higher than that.
Turbocharged B-17s and B-24s flew at 25000ft with their escorts a little higher. Not much difference.
Lol, no it means that on 7 Dec 1941 40% of the USAAC first-line fighters in Philippines were armed with .300 mgs, Wiki says that most of USAAC fighters on Oahu were P-40Bs, I had exact numbers in my attic, but because you do not mind facts, why bother, you like to use wiki, so be it. Now that means that when the Pacific War began, most of the USAAC fighters there were armed with .300s (plus also with two 0.5s). That was over a year after the end of the BoB. You can read from the AHT that the USAAC got some 350 P-40s with .300 wing guns.
Maybe this thread gives to you some idea on air combat RAF Fighter Gunnery Analysis the main point to understand air gunnery and air combat is that to achieve a kill in 99.9% of the cases you must first hit the enemy a/c.
Both AHT and Baugher say 44 P-40Gs of which 16 were sent to the SU.From what I read that is what a P-40G is. The British asked for 4 x 0.303 wing guns, the US asked for 20 wings and put them on their own P-40s which were called P-40Gs. It said some went to Russia some were retained but didnt give details, didnt even say if "20 wings" were individual or pairs.
Thanks, how I could forget that?Don't forget the P-36s still in front-line service with the USAAF, some 39 of which were at Pearl Harbor, which also had 30 cal armament.
Groundhog Fatigue?Thanks, how I could forget that?
No just pining for the fjordsRoadkill…. How appropriate.
No .30 cal armed P-40s at Dutch Harbor. P-40s at Otter Point were P-40Es. These replaced the P-36s initially stationed in Alaska at the start of the war.Re P-40s: Virtually all of them in the Phillipines, Pearl Harbor, Dutch Harbor... Re Mustang: No sh!t Sherlock, you're the one claiming it never had .30's in it.
Re F4F and F4U: No sh!t Sherlock, you're the one claiming they never had .30's not me. Re F2A: Yes.
No lamer then trying to remove nose armor and IFF and a host of other equipment to make the plane even more out of balance, at least here the CoG wouldn't be as effed up and 7 .30's with liberal application of tracer would pretty much shred any Japanese aircraft. According to your logic it would be knocking Zeke's down from Henderson to 7 Mile with ease.
(See, I can make hasty generalizations and pontificate them as facts as well)
Name an operational area where the P-39 was flying in that didn't have radar, I'll wait.
Can you stop posting this, I cringe when I see posts about B-17s at 25,000ft it didnt happen, or it was rare, or it was in a different era, anyway removing a compass saved 2 Lbs, so that is this argument sorted.No to mention...
Ducted air heating system was present on the P-39D.I did see your post #2617 (I actually read the stuff you write and respond to it) and it makes no mention of the P-39C (Model 13).
On one of the many threads you've turned into a P-39 Groundhog Day, you made the following statement in the context of additional "useless" items specified by the British for the P-400 (Source: SHOULD the P39 have been able to handle the Zero? Was it training or performance?):
"…and other such items as a cockpit heater that was fueled by kerosene when the P-39 already had probably the best cockpit climate control system of any American fighter that simply ducted hot air from the radiator"
I'll summarize the Bell Model numbers again in case you missed it the first 3 times I posted it:
Model 13 (P-39C) - Equipped with the gas-fuelled heater just as per the P-400 (Source: Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained))
Model 14 (P-400) - Had the same gas-fuelled heater as the P-39C. Per the above quote, you are claiming that the British specified the "useless" gas heater when the P-39 already had "probably the best cockpit climate control system" using ducted air from the radiator. The problem is the ducted air solution doesn't appear until after the Model 14A-1 below.
Model 14A (P-39D-1) - Same gas-fuelled heater as the P-39C (Source: Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained))
Model 14A-1 (P-39D-2) - Same gas-fuelled heater as the P-39C (Source: Groundhog Thread Part Deux - P-39 Fantasy and Fetish - The Never Ending Story (Mods take no responsibility for head against wall injuries sustained)).
It seems that the ducted-air heating solution wasn't present in the P-39 until after the P-39D-2. I need you to explain how it is that the P-400 had a ducted air cockpit heating that seemingly didn't appear until a much later Bell Model number? None of this is covered in your Post #2617 so please, share your expertise and explain how I'm wrong (again).
One final point. In Post #2617 you state that the gas-fuelled heater was useless because of its impact on the radio. As pointed out in my previous post, that's the fault of Bell for not integrating the heater effectively with the other aircraft systems. That is NOT the fault of the British. However, take out the gas-fuelled heater from the P-39C/D-1/D-2 and P-400 and you're left with a fighter that has no cockpit heating. How good will the aircraft's high-altitude performance be if the pilot is frozen?