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

[buffnut453]

In case anyone cares, I took a look at the Keskinen and Stenman books and came up with the following Finnish claim totals against the more capable Soviet fighter types:

Hurricane: 54
Yak 1/7/9: 41
La 5: 21
Spitfire: 13

Even if any ONE of those types shot down ALL the 15 Finnish Brewster losses, it would still represent a solid performance by the Brewster. Of course we know that Brewsters were shot down by a range of different Soviet aircraft.

The key thing is that pilot proficiency makes a huge difference in aircraft combat performance.

 

[buffnut453]

Just for fun, I went through Peter Boer's most excellent "Aircraft of the Netherlands East Indies Army Air Corps in Crisis and War Times, February 1937 to June 1942" (I heartily recommend this book, or any of Peter's other books, for anyone interested in the NEI fight against the Japanese). Boer comes up with 15 confirmed kills, 8 probables and 2 damaged for the loss of 20 Brewsters.

 

[SaparotRob]

Great thread! Not so good for the P-39 but Buffalo lovers rejoice!

 

[SaparotRob]

My dog's better than your dog. My dog's better than yours. My dog's better 'cause he eats Kennel-Ration! My dog's better than yours.

 

[GregP]

Maybe what they really needed was a Buffalacobra. A combination, if you will, of the Buffalo and the AIracobra.

The main reason it never happened in real life is that the Airacobra was USAAF and the Buffalo was USN/MC.

The plans were drawn up, but were lost during the 1939 Army-Navy football game when the two mascots got into a fight while near the plans that were on display. The Army mascot, a mule, ate about half of the plans. The Navy mascot was a goat and, naturally, could eat ANYTHING. Unfortunately, it did just that, and the Buffalacobra plans were never resurrected for production.

Another in a long line of "might have beens."

 

[pbehn]

Well...a wee bit more than a squadron-sized sample. Plus the Buffalo was in combat for a very long time: first kill was 25 June 1941 and the last was 3 October 1944. That's a pretty impressive record and testament to the skill not only of the Finnish pilots but also the maintenance crews who kept such a small force flying and combat-capable for so long.

Yes, the Buffalo flew later than either the Spitfire or Hurricane...but not by much. It was still a mid-ish 30s design and, like its contemporaries, suffered from lack of combat experience feeding into the design. It's key shortfall was lack of growth capacity. It was a small airframe and its design meant it was inherently limited from the very beginning.

Probably the best thing the Buffalo did for the US was spur development of the F4F as a monoplane (the XF4F-1 which the Brewster beat in competition was a biplane). It was still the first modern (with enclosed cockpit, retractable undercarriage, flaps etc), single-seat fighter to enter navy service anywhere in the world.

As you say it was in service for a long time. The Finns ordered 44 aircraft with 10 replacement engines and 20 replacement propellers. I dont know what composed a Finnish squadron but even a 12 airplane RAF squadron was performing miracles keeping operational for over 3 years with 44 aircraft. AFAK only two squadrons operated the Buffalo but only one at any time. Fighter squadron 24 had them until May 1944 when they were transferred to Fighter squadron 26.
This is a good read.

Brewster F2A Buffalo - Operational History - Finland

www.liquisearch.com

Which contains this quote.
"The Brewster model 239 was good against the older Russian fighters, Polikarpov I-153 Chaika (Gull) and I-16. Hence the period 1941–42 was the best time for us. In 1943 it was already significantly more difficult when the Russians began to use their newer fighters against us... Later, with the Yaks, Hurricanes, Tomahawks, LaGG-3 and MiGs, it became a fight to the death."

 

[Glider]

As you say it was in service for a long time. The Finns ordered 44 aircraft with 10 replacement engines and 20 replacement propellers. I dont know what composed a Finnish squadron but even a 12 airplane RAF squadron was performing miracles keeping operational for over 3 years with 44 aircraft. AFAK only two squadrons operated the Buffalo but only one at any time. Fighter squadron 24 had them until May 1944 when they were transferred to Fighter squadron 26.
This is a good read.

Brewster F2A Buffalo - Operational History - Finland

www.liquisearch.com

Which contains this quote.
"The Brewster model 239 was good against the older Russian fighters, Polikarpov I-153 Chaika (Gull) and I-16. Hence the period 1941–42 was the best time for us. In 1943 it was already significantly more difficult when the Russians began to use their newer fighters against us... Later, with the Yaks, Hurricanes, Tomahawks, LaGG-3 and MiGs, it became a fight to the death."

The RAF as a rule of thumb in Europe assumed that a front line squadron would need approx. 50 aircraft to stay operational for six months

 

[pbehn]

The RAF as a rule of thumb in Europe assumed that a front line squadron would need approx. 50 aircraft to stay operational for six months

Exactly, a fighter marque only stayed as the "front line top fighter" with the RAF for about six months anyway.


The Russians and those on the eastern front used a different spreadsheet with different priorities.
The same link has this quote
"On 18 August 1942 he was involved in one of the most successful sorties involving the Buffalo fighter. Lt Hans Wind with six other Buffalos of LeLv 24 intercepted some 60 Soviet aircraft near Kronstad. Two Russian Pe-2 bombers, one Soviet Hurricane fighter, and 12 I-16s were shot down with the loss of just one Buffalo B-239 (BW-378)."

So 7 interceptors bounced and downed 15 aircraft with a loss of one Buffalo a ratio of 1 to 15. But the quote doesnt say how many more Pe-2 bombers out of the 60 plane formation made it to complete the mission. On a different spreadsheet the tally would be 2 bombers lost one enemy interceptor destroyed. In the same way that Marseilles became a celebrated ace without shooting down a bomber and therefore having little effect of the actual war in N Africa, there are many ways of looking at statistics.

 

[Glider]

Exactly, a fighter marque only stayed as the "front line top fighter" with the RAF for about six months anyway.


The Russians and those on the eastern front used a different spreadsheet with different priorities.
The same link has this quote
"On 18 August 1942 he was involved in one of the most successful sorties involving the Buffalo fighter. Lt Hans Wind with six other Buffalos of LeLv 24 intercepted some 60 Soviet aircraft near Kronstad. Two Russian Pe-2 bombers, one Soviet Hurricane fighter, and 12 I-16s were shot down with the loss of just one Buffalo B-239 (BW-378)."

So 7 interceptors bounced and downed 15 aircraft with a loss of one Buffalo a ratio of 1 to 15. But the quote doesnt say how many more Pe-2 bombers out of the 60 plane formation made it to complete the mission. On a different spreadsheet the tally would be 2 bombers lost one enemy interceptor destroyed. In the same way that Marseilles became a celebrated ace without shooting down a bomber and therefore having little effect of the actual war in N Africa, there are many ways of looking at statistics.

Totally agree. A similar logic would be the British landings at Dieppe. No question that the RAF lost more aircraft than the Germans and a lot of people call it a victory for the Luftwaffe. But the landing forces approached the area, the landings took place and the withdrawal was completed with next to no interference from the Luftwaffe. Despite it being right on their doorstep, in other words the RAF did what they were supposed to do, a lesson often lost.

 

[nuuumannn]

This seems to be a "dog watching tennis" situation.

On occasion, the dog stops and licks its balls. At least it has its priorities right.

 

[nuuumannn]

The whole theory that the Brits deliberately added a gas heater to help increase the P-400's weight so they could get out of the contract is so ridiculous.

And this after the reasons why the P-39 was rejected by the RAF has been stated here a few times already. The A&AEE actually commented favourably about the ease at which the P-39 could be landed, but found the cockpit cramped and visibility poor. To repeat, the RAF didn't like the way the magnetic compass tumbled every time the guns were fired and so rejected it despite a fix being found relatively soon afterwards, the A&AEE trials revealed that its performance was inferior to the Spitfire V and continuing unserviceability and unreliability of the aircraft already in service meant that the fate of the Airacobra in British hands was sealed.

 

[pbehn]

Totally agree. A similar logic would be the British landings at Dieppe. No question that the RAF lost more aircraft than the Germans and a lot of people call it a victory for the Luftwaffe. But the landing forces approached the area, the landings took place and the withdrawal was completed with next to no interference from the Luftwaffe. Despite it being right on their doorstep, in other words the RAF did what they were supposed to do, a lesson often lost.

The top LW ace scored about the same or more than the whole Finnish airforce using Buffalos in the whole war, and he was on the losing side. The numbers on the eastern front defy western logic, because Uncle Joe always knew he had more men and women than his opponent, an aeroplane was just a weapon and a pilot was just a person, no more or less valuable than any other.

 

[Graeme]

What do you think made those numbers work?

I've no idea how accurate this - Martin Gilbert from the 70's attributed the Finn's success with the Buffalo to good pilots, a better engine and a ton lighter (?)

 

[pbehn]

The Buffalo fighters that were sent to Finland were de-navalized; before these fighters were placed onto ships for delivery to Finland, Brewster Company employees removed all the naval equipment on the fighters, such as their tailhooks and life-raft containers, resulting in a somewhat lighter aircraft. The Finnish F2A-1s further lacked self-sealing fuel tanks and cockpit armor.

These F2A-1 Buffalos, given the export number Model B-239, were equipped with an export-approved Wright R-1820-G5 nine-cylinder radial engine of 950 hp (708 kW). After their delivery to Finland, the Finnish Air Force added armored backrests for their pilots, metric flight instruments, the Finnish Väisälä T.h.m.40 gunsight, and four .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns. The top speed of the Finnish Buffalos, as modified, was 297 mph (478 km/h) at 15,675 ft (4,750 m), and their loaded weight was 5,820 lb (2,640 kg).

 

[FLYBOYJ]

the RAF didn't like the way the magnetic compass tumbled every time the guns were fired

In the day this was a huge issue as there were little to no navigation aids installed in fighters at that time (you had the few that got an ADF). Your Directional Gyro was set was continually set to the mag compass (as it precessed every several minutes) and most of your navigation was done by Dead Reckoning. Then again with IFF you might be vectored back to base if you were identified by someone tracking you, but I won't even get into that!

 

[nuuumannn]

Then again with IFF you might be vectored back to base if you were identified by someone tracking you, but I won't even get into that!

Did you read the manuals, Joe...

 

[nuuumannn]

In the day this was a huge issue as there were little to no navigation aids installed in fighters at that time (you had the few that got an ADF). Your Directional Gyro was set was continually set to the mag compass (as it precessed every several minutes) and most of your navigation was done by Dead Reckoning.

I have asked the expert when the USAAF discovered this was happening and what was done about it, but he didn't know. Is there any evidence this affected the P-39 in US service? The RAF did find a fix, apparently, but I don't know what it entailed.

 

[pbehn]

This was not a minor issue, pilots disorientated after combat could easily get lost and run out of fuel before they found out where they were. The first Fw190 delivered into UK hands was an example of this, in combat over the Bristol Channel Armin Ferber flew north instead of south and thinking the Bristol Channel was the English Channel made a perfect landing in Pembrey Wales.

Armin Faber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PAT303]

I've always wondered about navigation, after 10 minutes in a turning fight I'd be lost, I think I would stress more about being lost that being shot at.

 

[P-39 Expert]

I do like the way the P-39 "escorts" clear the airfield fence, get the gear up, switch to the drop tank and head for Germany.

at some point in 1943 the P-47 groups changed number of aircraft per squadron to 25 aircraft. Or 75 planes for a 3 squadron group. even if not all planes are flying let's call it 50 planes operational on a given day. At 15 seconds between planes that is 12.5 minutes, at 20 seconds between planes that 16.7 minutes.

Using the "experts" flight plan the lead plane/s are at about 15,000ft and 50 miles from the airfield when the last plane/s take off.
This is actually brilliant planning as we don't have to worry about the fuel used in formation flying. There is NO formation. Just a bunch of planes in ones (mostly) and twos (occasionally) strung out over 50 miles winging their way into enemy airspace.

I also like the way he picks which parts of the manuals (or which sentences ) he is going to use and which he is going to ignore.

Per Edwards Park in his book "Angels Twenty" form up was easy, planes took off in pairs, with the next pair starting takeoff roll as the previous pair were about halfway down the runway. Lead pair took a very wide swing to vector to target. Next pair took a little narrower swing, and on down through the last (8th) pair taking a short swing with all 16 planes in the squadron being in formation. Switch to drop tank was after gear/flaps were up and climb speed established.