Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Turbocharged B-17s and B-24s flew at 25000ft with their escorts a little higher. Not much difference.
Conversations with N. Golodnikov, Part 3, P-39. Conversations with N.Golodnikov. Part Three. P-39 Airacobra and Yaks – Lend-Lease
Where did you see the 600yds range for the .30cal? Edit: Oh, sorry, I see it now. AHT lists 200yds as the max practical range. Why would we want the max theoretical range?Never said that did I?
Just saying that keeping the .30 cal was not the logistics problem you are making it out to be.
Now why don't you give the rest of the information in the tables and btw, the text includes NO definition of either "max effective practical range" or "max effective theoretical range"
For the .30 cal these ranges are the 200 yds you have said and 600yds, the 37mm cannon had ranges of 300yds and 600yds. The 50 cal has ranges of 300yds and 900 yds while the 20mm in the table has ranges of 1200 yds and 2400yds which is total nonsense.
I would also note that the heavier weight given for the 30 cal bullets like 220 grains is total nonsense. The US stopped putting 220 grain projectiles into 30 cal rifle ammo in 1906 when they changed from the .30-03 round to the .30-06. The .30-03 won't even chamber in a .30-06 gun.
AHT is very, very good. It is not infallible.
Have to go to work now.
You know full well that I was replying to Shortround's post where he said that altitudes of 30000' in the BoB were not uncommon but they did not fight at 30000' (bold is his). I never said that a plane shot down at 30000' was not in combat.Are you saying that a plane shot down at 30,000ft was not actually in combat because it was above the "combat" altitude? What do you call firing guns at each other, other than fight or combat? This is taking groundhogism to a new height, or dare I say a new altitude of semantics.
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.Uhh... are you saying now that the P-39 was able to do the Mustang's job? And is it supposed to match the Mustang's performance at 26,400 feet? Which is basically RIGHT in the Mustang's wheelhouse.
It was so common it became an issue that Park and the RAF had to address, can you read a book on it instead of just giving us your feelings?You know full well that I was replying to Shortround's post where he said that altitudes of 30000' in the BoB were not uncommon but they did not fight at 30000' (bold is his). I never said that a plane shot down at 30000' was not in combat.
I also never said that no planes got up to 30000' in the BoB. Shortround said it was not uncommon. I say it was very rare. If not almost never.
Okay, how many P-40s with .30calMGs served in the AAF after Pearl Harbor?Um, the P-40s at Pearl Harbor were fitted with the 0.30"mg.
No 7850lb fighter with an 1150hp engine will bring much to the table. A 7100lb fighter will bring a lot to the table.Both sides in 1940-41 were working to improve the ceilings (all of them by whatever name) of their aircraft because it takes months if not years to get to get a new airplane or engine into service (variations of existing equipment takes less time but not instant), You can't wait for your opponent to show his improved capability. You have to be working on improving your own so you are ready when his improvement/s show up.
Reason for the Hurricane II was to improve the Hurricane so it was close to the Spitfire in capability so the total number of fighters being produced were altitude capable, making Spitfires with Merlin XX engines and continuing to make Hurricanes with Melrin IIIs or Melrin XIIs would have meant an overall less capable fighter force.
A wrench in the works was that cockpit heating, gun heating and oxygen equipment did not progress as fast as the engines so the engine improvements were harder to take advantage of.
The P-400/P-39 showed up at the wrong time. It showed up as the British were anticipating higher operational ceilings and the British were already getting low altitude P-40s and about to get low altitude Mustang Is.
In Mid 1941 to spring of 1942 the Bell fighter simply doesn't bring much to the table as production versions are much slower than promised and they can't do anything that can't be done by a number of fighters already in British service except complicate the supply situation.
But not for very long before it becomes a statisticNo 7850lb fighter with an 1150hp engine will bring much to the table. A 7100lb fighter will bring a lot to the table.
Every one of you guys are masters at taking a general statement and finding a very small number of exceptions and then stating that I'm wrong. It was a big war with lots of exceptions to every rule.And you need to understand that it makes no difference what you call the ceiling. The LW sent recon planes over UK at extremely high altitude dropping bombs, eventually a modified Spitfire shot one down at 42,000 ft. One gun was jammed and every time the other fired the plane stalled and dropped. After several attempts it made one hit with a cannon shell, that was enough to stop that type of raid. That is what it was all about, it doesnt have to be "common" it would have persisted until a successful interception happened. This is what happened in the dog days of the BoB, what began as a free shot, dropping bombs randomly on Kent and London started to cost pilots and planes and so was stopped. Can you remind us what you said makes you cringe?
Here you are, my bold.
Quote "BoB got nowhere near 30000ft. Spitfire and 109E combat ceilings (1000fpm climb) were a little above 25000'. 110s about 21000ft. He111 ABSOLUTE ceiling was 22000ft. Nobody going near 30000ft, much less over except possibly recon missions. I cringe when I hear 30000ft in WWII.
It was the issue that had to be solved in October 1940. If you read in detail the daily reports there were many others before that were ignored because there were bigger fish to fry. The LW would continue them until they were stopped, as they did later with low level tip and run raids, they continued until Typhoons started to chase them down. So just because I read it in a book and quote it, your feelings on the matter become paramount, no wonder this groundhog thread goes on for ever, it is based on your emotions.Every one of you guys are masters at taking a general statement and finding a very small number of exceptions and then stating that I'm wrong. It was a big war with lots of exceptions to every rule.
I'll stick with cringing whenever I hear 30000' in the BoB. I still don't believe it was even an everyday occurrence. Just because you found a very few examples of somebody claiming to get to 30000' does not mean it was common. You know it was not. To get to 30000' a Spitfire would be climbing at around 500fpm. That is a vertical speed of a little over 5mph, a little better than walking speed.
Bombers in the Bob are certainly not getting to 30000', more like under 20000'. The goal of the British in the BoB was to shoot down bombers, not fighters. Why would they be drawn away from their main target (bombers) to go chase some 109Es? Sure, send an element, maybe a flight (4) up to harass them, but the main force of interceptors will be heading for the bombers.
That would hurt my feelings if I had any. I'm about as unemotional on this as can be. Thanks for thinking about me.It was the issue that had to be solved in October 1940. If you read in detail the daily reports there were many others before that were ignored because there were bigger fish to fry. The LW would continue them until they were stopped, as they did later with low level tip and run raids, they continued until Typhoons started to chase them down. So just because I read it in a book and quote it, your feelings on the matter become paramount, no wonder this groundhog thread goes on for ever, it is based on your emotions.
You said it NEVER happened, when shown that it did you opine on frequency and how many you think took place.That would hurt my feelings if I had any. I'm about as unemotional on this as can be. Thanks for thinking about me.
Your point being?You said it NEVER happened, when shown that it did you opine on frequency and how many you think took place.
From wiki
The Luftwaffe decided to expand its fighter bomber force and an additional group equipped with modified Bf 109s became operational in August. On 2 September Hermann Göring, the Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, directed that one squadron of each Bf 109 group was to be equipped with fighter-bombers and that these aircraft were to be used to attack the British aircraft industry and other industrial facilities.[6]
Despite Göring's directive, only 19 fighter-bomber operations were conducted against the UK during September 1940. These operations involved 428 sorties, of which 264 were conducted against London. Four fighter-bombers were lost, one by fighters and the others to anti-aircraft guns.[7] On 26 September, a force of fifty fighter-bombers and medium bombers attacked the Supermarine aircraft factory at Woolston, Southampton; this raid stopped all production at the factory for a period and killed more than thirty people. The Royal Air Force (RAF) shot down three of the raiders but lost six fighters. The next day, ten Bf 110 fighter-bombers escorted by other fighters attempted to attack either RAF Filton or another target near Bristol. This force was intercepted by No. 504 Squadron RAF and the Bf 110s dropped their bombs on Bristol, causing little damage.[8]
Later in autumn, the Luftwaffe conducted a series of attacks on London using Bf 109 fighter-bombers.[8] These operations represented the majority of German attacks on Britain in October 1940, and the British defences had difficulty detecting and intercepting the high-flying and fast fighter-bomber formations. Due to their speed British radar stations usually provided less than 20 minutes warning before the aircraft arrived over London.[9] The Luftwaffe conducted 140 attacks involving 2,633 fighter-bomber sorties against London during October. Losses were light, with 29 Bf 109s being destroyed.[10] October marked the peak of fighter-bomber operations in 1940 but attacks continued until late in the year. The rate of effort decreased during November and December as the Bf 109s needed to be used to counter RAF fighter sweeps over France and the onset of winter weather reduced flying opportunities.[11]
2,600 sorties and 29 planes lost doing it in one month is not never and not few or hardly ever, is it? That is my point, what is yours, do you now accept that many sorties took place at high altitude in the BoB? My other point is the P-39 would be utterly useless in countering these raids.Your point being?
I didn't see one altitude reference.2,600 sorties and 29 planes lost doing it in one month is not never and not few or hardly ever, is it? That is my point, what is yours, do you now accept that many sorties took place at high altitude in the BoB? My other point is the P-39 would be utterly useless in countering these raids.
In my previous posts and posts by others, you are just trolling, you prove they werent at high altitude because you have been given ample references that say they were. The whole point is that fighters in UK had to reach 30,000ft to do their job, which means the P-39 would be utterly completely absolutely useless, no use at all, devoid of usefulness, do you get my point?I didn't see one altitude reference.
Where in my post did I mention the BoB, the BoB as an event was over, the RAF still had to defend its airspace which in 1942 meant interceptions at 42,000ft and low level tip and run raiders all along the south coast, again the P-39 would be useless at this, which is why the British sent the malfunctioning rubbish away. I no longer care what you are convinced of because nothing convinces you of anything. What is serious and consistent? Isnt 2,600 in a month serious and consistent? The link if you read it says "and the British defences had difficulty detecting and intercepting the high-flying and fast fighter-bomber formations. "You are totally confused. I have not made one reference to the P-39 in the BoB. P-39 production didn't even start until 1941. There were no P-30s available for the BoB.
You still haven't convinced me of any serious or consistent combat at 30000' in the BoB.
I am not trolling anyone. You are trolling me.
I may be 'pushing it' a bit if I say that if the game "IL-2 Sturmovik" is ANYTHING to go by, P-39 was truly fearsome weapon if piloted by a grizzled veteran.