How good a plane was the P-40, really? (2 Viewers)

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I actually like reading varying opinions, so long as they have some factual basis. I can read the data in a book. I come here for the people.

Fair enough... I guess a little opinion with the data is fine, but I like a high 'data to opinion ratio' . Some of the data I've found in this forum - wartime documents, statistics, images, unit records, pilot testimonials, are not available in any books I can get my hands on.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Not to mention, incredibly, i keep finding out about new WW2 planes I never heard of. Like just up above here... I've come to the conclusion that WW2 aircraft types are literally infinite, some kind of mid-century high octane gear-punk universe with no edges and no end.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fair enough... I guess a little opinion with the data is fine, but I like a high 'data to opinion ratio' . Some of the data I've found in this forum - wartime documents, statistics, images, unit records, pilot testimonials, are not available in any books I can get my hands on.

All good points.

 

[pbehn]

Well then you know that the Soviets did a three month workup before their initial deployment of the P-39, and they did much the same thing with the Spitfire Mk V around the same time (early 1943 if I remember correctly).

Whatever work up the Soviets did with the P-39 in Russia was in addition to a lot of work done with 610 squadron in UK. There was a team of specialist pilots engineers and technicians working out the best way to make use of the P-39 which had by then been earmarked as a type to be sent to Russia.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Do you have some evidence that the Soviets got the research from the UK on the P-39? My impression was that the Brits had evaluated and pretty quickly dismissed the P-39 as not having the speed it was advertised and having a bad compass (I think due to magnetized armor?) and a bunch of other issues, on top of the relatively low critical altitude, which made it unsuitable for their needs, including in the Med or Burma etc.

 

[pbehn]

Do you have some evidence that the Soviets got the research from the UK on the P-39? My impression was that the Brits had evaluated and pretty quickly dismissed the P-39 as not having the speed it was advertised and having a bad compass (I think due to magnetized armor?) and a bunch of other issues, on top of the relatively low critical altitude, which made it unsuitable for their needs, including in the Med or Burma etc.

The Mustang/P-51 had issues with magnetism, and having come across it in industry it is a bit of a nightmare. The British could have made something of the P-39 in my opinion, but not a lot. It was almost as limited in range as the Spitfire, limited in altitude and behind the development curve of the times. It wasnt better than anything the British had already in service inn 1941 and there were much better planes on the horizon.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

No argument there

 

[Shortround6]

Do you have some evidence that the Soviets got the research from the UK on the P-39? My impression was that the Brits had evaluated and pretty quickly dismissed the P-39 as not having the speed it was advertised and having a bad compass (I think due to magnetized armor?) and a bunch of other issues, on top of the relatively low critical altitude, which made it unsuitable for their needs, including in the Med or Burma etc.

while the British worked on them I don't know if they solved all, or most of the problems and they just figured they had more important stuff to work on.
One of the problems was the compass which tended to go out of whack when the guns were fired.
The British may have still been having problems with .50 cal machine guns.
The P-39 was a bit of a ground lover, needed long runways/strips to take-off and land and while the British were working on making their airfields larger, and got some of them to handle P-38s and P-47s, that was in future and not in the fall of 1941 and winter. No amount of trouble shooting systems was going to solve that.
Yes the British had been sold a pack of untruths as to the performance but the need to trouble shoot so much stuff and still wind up with a marginal plane for their needs may have been too much.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] and having a bad compass (I think due to magnetized armor?) [...]

All that nose armor.

I'll get my jacket.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Bloody Shambles III is already revealing some interesting stuff related to the P-40

 

[glennasher]

Does any of this really matter now? We all know it was a solid workhorse aircraft that soldiered on throughout the war, doing a fair-to-middling job from '42 on. No one DISliked it like they did the P-39, or some of the other aircraft then in use. It had "good enough" performance in most theaters, decent range, tough to shoot down, I think "workhorse" is a great description of it. Not the best at anything, but far from the worst, too. Just a good solid performer.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Does any of this really matter now?

What, in your opinion, is the purpose of this forum?

We all know it was a solid workhorse aircraft that soldiered on throughout the war, doing a fair-to-middling job from '42 on. No one DISliked it like they did the P-39, or some of the other aircraft then in use. It had "good enough" performance in most theaters, decent range, tough to shoot down, I think "workhorse" is a great description of it. Not the best at anything, but far from the worst, too. Just a good solid performer.

Not necessarily wrong, but also more or less meaningless cliches, IMO

 

[pbehn]

while the British worked on them I don't know if they solved all, or most of the problems and they just figured they had more important stuff to work on.
One of the problems was the compass which tended to go out of whack when the guns were fired.
The British may have still been having problems with .50 cal machine guns.
The P-39 was a bit of a ground lover, needed long runways/strips to take-off and land and while the British were working on making their airfields larger, and got some of them to handle P-38s and P-47s, that was in future and not in the fall of 1941 and winter. No amount of trouble shooting systems was going to solve that.
Yes the British had been sold a pack of untruths as to the performance but the need to trouble shoot so much stuff and still wind up with a marginal plane for their needs may have been too much.

The British were working on them with Bell, but many things they were working on may well have been identified by Bell between the planes being dismantled and shipped to UK and being assembled and used in UK, it is a process that took months. Between the first orders for P-39s being placed and planes actually being used many things happened. I France hadnt fallen and a conlict like WW1 was taking place in France and Benelux then a P-39 would be of much more use as they were in Russia. By the time the P-39 was being used by the British they were or would be "Lend Lease" but they werent better or even as good as what the British already had in many respects but were better than what the Russians had.

 

[PAT303]

When did the RAF accept the P39 into service?.

 

[Greyman]

April 1940 - ordered
July 1941 - aircraft began arriving
August 1941 - received by 601 Squadron
October 1941 - first action

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So it went into action with the UK just a few weeks before the first units did in Russia, although the serious use came in spring 1942 and spring 1943 respectively (north and southern fronts)

 

[pbehn]

April 1940 - ordered
July 1941 - aircraft began arriving
August 1941 - received by 601 Squadron
October 1941 - first action

That "era" spanned many things from the fall of France and start of the campaign in N Africa to the invasion of Russia and included big decisions on Lend Lease, closely followed by Pearl Harbor and the US formal entry into the War. The British werent impressed with the P-39 as delivered, even if they received P-39Ns in 1941 I doubt they would have got any more, thee USA and Russia's immediate need for fighters and USA long term need for advanced trainers would rule them out for UK under lend lease IMHO.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

It seems like the RAF settled on the Kittyhawk as their 'foreign fighter of choice' for North Africa, the RAAF and RNZAF on the Kittyhawk for the South Pacific (not sure if they had a choice), the FAA on the Martlet / Wildcat, and the Soviets on the P-39. All fairly early-on vis a vis Lend Lease, as in late 1941 - early 1942.

Later more fighter types became available but for the most part they arrived too late to have a major influence on the war.

 

[pbehn]

It seems like the RAF settled on the Kittyhawk as their 'foreign fighter of choice' for North Africa, the RAAF and RNZAF on the Kittyhawk for the South Pacific (not sure if they had a choice), the FAA on the Martlet / Wildcat, and the Soviets on the P-39. All fairly early-on vis a vis Lend Lease, as in late 1941 - early 1942.

Later more fighter types became available but for the most part they arrived too late to have a major influence on the war.

On plan that did "queer the pitch" at the time was the Mustang Mk I ecause the British had ordered and paid for those and they were arrivin as the P-39s were being packed off to Russia.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

And they found the recon niche for those, which they kept using them for quite late into the war I think?