Wild_Bill_Kelso
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,231
- Mar 18, 2022
It looks like there is an antenna wire coming out of the port wing of this (Aussie?0 P-40N... is that what that is? Or is it like a vine in the foreground?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
View attachment 765520
It looks like there is an antenna wire coming out of the port wing of this (Aussie?0 P-40N... is that what that is? Or is it like a vine in the foreground?
I never stated anything you ascribing me here. You have a rich imagination, but, please, find a better use for it. Please, do not extrapolate anything I write about you personally on the whole audience of the forum.Let me help circle this back to relevance. Which is here is that you tried to argue from authority, as if you were the only person on the forum who understands statistics, which you were leveraging to insist that there is no observable correlation between combat outcomes and merits of a given fighter aircraft in WW2.
Objectively, you have not demonstrated yet any arguments supporting your opinion.Which is patently, objectively, ridiculous.
I am pretty sure that you have only the most general knowledge of statistics and never dealt with statistical analysis more complex than the calculation of a standard deviation for normally distributed data taking into account your judgements.I don't need to write a SQL query to tell me that, and I don't need a degree in statistics either. It is really just a coincidence that I wrote BI software (for highly demanding clients, and which was heavily scrutinized) for more than 20 years. I don't have the knowledge of a true statistician, but I certainly understand how sampling, survey methodology, and statistical quality assurance work.
That's great! You find the simplest case of all possible, when the conditions are indeed comparable and the comparison is quite correct, and then bravely extrapolate it to all the other cases. Surely this is an excellent and very correct approach.None of that is really necessary to recognize that the combat outcomes of the Bloch 152 are dramatically worse than those of the D.520, and that is in turn, at least in large part, a reflection of problems with the aircraft type.
Your understanding of logic is as deep as your understanding of statistics.Do you base that on a statistical analysis of arguments or on your intuition, or are you just using it as a device to further what you see as your cause?
1.Your point of view is due to only one reason: you know too little about the Soviet Air Force. That is why you write all kinds of nonsense about them. When you are proven to mistake, you rush to google information that I know for a long time.Let me be clear and candid then. There are three issues at hand:
1) You came across in a previous discussion here as a fanatic adherent of outlier positions, including blanket disparagement of the Soviet air forces. It struck me as more ideological than "data driven" to use a corporate buzzword from the database world. Your handle is also a hint of a particular bent. People with various agendas show up on forums like this and I have learned from experience it's both pointless and boring to debate them. We had past exchanges which reinforced this view in your case. True to this type of forumite, in my experience, you do not seem to be receptive to, or even aware of points which refute your pre-concieved positions.
I wasn't going to discuss Cobra at all. I only made an obvious remark that it is often incorrect to judge an airplane by the outcome (which is difficult to estimate by itself).2) The P-39, which you seem eager to discuss, was driven deep into the ground as a subject by another forumite with just such an agenda driven bent, in the not too distant past. To the extent that people here didn't even want to mention that aircraft type by name and were using euphemisms as a joke. Which ties into...
I never told about any kind of theory of general Soviet inferiority. You are arrogantly attributing your fantasies to me. My point was, that Stalin's regime was extremely ineffective and was responsible for additional losses suffered by the Soviets. Repressions in the army deprived Soviet officers of initiative and decision autonomy, repressions among engineers and scientists deprived the USSR of a large number of experienced specialists, whose absence negatively impacted the quality of Soviet aircraft (and not only aircraft). Erroneous production planning led to a lack of resources (in particular, for pilot training) resulting in huge losses at the front. A well-trained Soviet ace pilot was as good as a German "expert" or any Allied ace. But the problem was that young pilots had too little chance to gain sufficient experience because of the totally inadequate training system as well as principles of rotation/replenishment of air regiments.3) ... the thread is about the P-40 and I don't want to heavily derail it. There is another pretty recent thread on the effectiveness of the Soviet Air Forces which you can chime in on if you want to expand upon your theories of general Soviet inferiority.
Definitely, I cannot learn anything new about the Soviet Air Forces from you.I admit that for these three reasons, I am not eager to wade into the weeds with you about these various issues, but if you want to revive the Soviet Air Force thread I will engage with you in there in detail. I think it is unlikely we will learn much from each other, but there are many other people on this forum with a wealth of knowledge of WW2, maybe we will both learn something from them.
I suggested Ehrengardt just because he was the only one author known to me who used archival documents. I read the French memoires (not only de la Poype's one) as well as popular books on the topic. And I find Ehrengardt more reliable than anything else I read on the topic. I just asked you to cite any comparable source. You were not able to do it.So you are suggesting that Ehrengardt is the only relevant source on the Normandie Niemen squadron, and that his conclusion that they chose the Yak fighter to appease the Soviets is the irrefutable truth, rather than a theory?
I didn't ask you to discuss memoires. I only asked you about any alternative source based on documents. Then we can compare the reliability.I have a day job today as an historical researcher, on a very different era. It has become abundantly clear to me from that vocation that both primary sources (like memoirs) and secondary or tertiary sources (like any postwar history, whether academic or popular) have their own unique challenges. Pilots do sometimes make mistakes in their writing, particularly in postwar literature like memoirs - we were recently discussing some of those of Pierre Clostermann, speaking of French aces. I admire Clostermann but he clearly did make some mistakes. However, taken in aggregate primary sources, including both wartime writing by pilots and post-war memoirs, are very useful. It just has to be checked alongside more prosaic primary data like unit histories.
You've never heard about Ehrengardt before I mentioned him. What the hell are you ascribing any clichés, etc. to him for? Seems, that you never read any serious post-war analysis at all and recognize any popular book on the topic as "analysis". Otherwise I cannot explain this bullshit about "clichés". Even the Soviets were able to separate analysis from propaganda, they just did it confidentially - some of these materials used for high officer education in military academies were declassified in 1990s, they are objective enough.Postwar analysis and histories are also not free of mistakes, very much to the contrary, as anyone who has read them is well aware. This is particularly the case when it comes to the technical details of war, for which hard, easily quantifiable data can be elusive. I would say it is doubly so with postwar analysis of WW2, and in particular many 20th Century books on WW2 (like Ehrengardts) are full of postwar cliches, tropes, and legends, and are often missing data from both sides.
In this particular case any comparative study was not necessary - French archival documents are quite enough to draw a conclusion.That is why a new generation of authors have become so prominent in this field of study in recent years. They have used data from Axis sources to help us verify Allied claims, for example, and to flesh out the whole narrative.
I'm not interested in your beliefs. I am only interested in reliable sources on the subject under discussion. You can't cite any of them.I haven't read Ehrengardt's history so I don't want to make any assumptions about him. He might be a good historian and it may well be a good history. But I don't automatically take your word for this particular issue, nor do I believe he is the last word on the subject of that unit. In fact I know perfectly well to the contrary.
Seems, that you don't know much about de la Poype personality as well.Why would being Jewish have anything to do with communism necessarily? I have to admit that I don't know anything about Mirlesse personally.
When? In 1942? )))))) He was a 22 years old young pilot without any experience in plastics, car design, company management, etc. But surely, American and British officials had a magical crystal to look into the future.I say de la Poype was about as far from a communist as you can get because he was an entepreneur and businessman,
He became a capitalist after the war. Not in 1942.and an avowed capitalist. He designed a car for Citroen and owned multiple factories making plastics, as well as resorts in the Caribbean.
You should read carefully before you write another nonsense. De la Poype was born on July, 28 1920. He was just a young pilot without any serious merits in 1942. Most French communists considered themselves patriots and played a very important role in the Resistance.He was a remarkable guy, who went to Russia to fight the Germans out of patriotism, I believe.
"A guy at the tip of the spear cannot be a communist! I swear!" )))))His father was killed in the Battle of France. That, and wanting to avenge the fall of France seem to have been his key motivation. He was flying for the RAF (and was wingman of Paddy Finucane for a while) but at a time (1941) when the front was somewhat static. He wanted to be at the tip of the spear.
I never stated anything you ascribing me here. You have a rich imagination, but, please, find a better use for it. Please, do not extrapolate anything I write about you personally on the whole audience of the
Objectively, you have not demonstrated yet any arguments supporting your opinion.
I am pretty sure that you have only the most general knowledge of statistics and never dealt with statistical analysis more complex than the calculation of a standard deviation for normally distributed data taking into account your judgements.
Your understanding of logic is as deep as your understanding of statistics.
I never told about any kind of theory of general Soviet inferiority. You are arrogantly attributing your fantasies to me. My point was, that Stalin's regime was extremely ineffective and was responsible for
Definitely, I cannot learn anything new about the Soviet Air Forces from you.
I suggested Ehrengardt just because he was the only one author known to me
I didn't ask you to discuss memoires. I only asked you about any alternative source based on documents. Then we can compare the reliability.
I'm not interested in your beliefs. I am only interested in reliable sources on the subject under discussion. You can't cite any of them.
You should read carefully before you write another nonsense. De la Poype was born on July, 28 1920. He was just a young pilot without any serious merits in 1942. Most French communists considered themselves patriots and played a very important role in the Resistance.
"A guy at the tip of the spear cannot be a communist! I swear!" )))))
At the altitudes the test was done at a MkV LF would hold every advantage over the P40 the standard model had over it above 20,000ft, even FW190A pilot's had to bring their A game against all LF models from 1943 onwards, it was the butcher birds menace that caused their development.And unfortunately I don't know of a test with an LF, they certainly had some advantages, though the P-40 would still roll better at high speeds. And I could also ask for a test with a P-40K or L!
Brilliant find mate.I couldn't find the Spitfire Vs Kittyhawk trials but found these documents that you guys might find interesting.
View Digital Image - Spitfire Vs Hap (Plus some combat reports against various aircraft types)
View Digital Image - Comparison between Spitfire Vc and P-40E. Mainly about spitfire tropical filter.
The results would not be much different.And unfortunately I don't know of a test with an LF, they certainly had some advantages, though the P-40 would still roll better at high speeds. And I could also ask for a test with a P-40K or L!
The results would not be much different.
engine..................................gear ratio..............take-off hp...............................hp/altitude/pressure..........................WEP
Allison V-1710-33...............8.77.............................1040........................................1090/13,200/38.9................................................
Allison V-1710-39...............8.80.............................1150........................................1150/11,700/44.6.......................1490/4300/56in
Allison V-1710-73...............8.80.............................1325........................................1150/12,000/42.0........................1580/2500/60in
Allison V-1710-81...............9.60.............................1200........................................1125/15,500/44.5.........................1410/9500/57in
There were a few minor tweaks to the superchargers in the first 3 engines and a change or two in manifolds and the backfire screens went away.
But all three engines were going to act much the same at any given altitude given pretty much the same boost. We know the -33s were over boosted but they never got an official rating. The -73 engine is not going to perform much different at 5000ft than the -39 engine using WEP. Both engines are running at the max airflow the supercharger can provide. At 5000ft the -73 engine can no longer provide the 1580hp power and will be closer to the 1490hp power level.
The -81 engine looses a bit of power down low but has more power in the 7000-12,000ft area, from 12,000ft and up you are probably within 5-6%.
data from manuals do not always agree.
changes in weight may make more difference than the difference in engines between some models of P-40.
Many P-40s flew at over designed weight in combat. Designed weight was for 120 US gallons of internal fuel.
I was trying to show the difference between the Allison engines, which was not that much. The -33 engine was good for 1040hp at at 14,300ft. The 1090hp at 13,200 is just a different way of rating the same engine. It does show the lack of progress with the Allison engine in the supercharger dept. The 1943 engine was good for 85 hp more 1,200ft higher than the 1940 engine. Unfortunately the P-40N-5 and later went about 1000lb heavier than the P-40B. The 200 P-40N-1s (the famous N strippers) were about 600lbs lighter when they left the factory. In service they often gained several hundred pounds back. For some weird reason/s the using squadrons wanted the ability to at least try to start the plane using the internal battery.The ones you left off are the P-40F and P-40L:
Packard Merlin V-1650..... 2 speed** ........1240 ...............................1100 /19270/??..................1450/2 speed**/60"
** Low speed blower critical altitude is 12,800', high speed blower critical altitude is 18,100', but still making 1100 hp at 19,270' where it achieves top speed.
I was trying to show the difference between the Allison engines, which was not that much. The -33 engine was good for 1040hp at at 14,300ft. The 1090hp at 13,200 is just a different way of rating the same engine. It does show the lack of progress with the Allison engine in the supercharger dept. The 1943 engine was good for 85 hp more 1,200ft higher than the 1940 engine. Unfortunately the P-40N-5 and later went about 1000lb heavier than the P-40B.
The 200 P-40N-1s (the famous N strippers) were about 600lbs lighter when they left the factory. In service they often gained several hundred pounds back. For some weird reason/s the using squadrons wanted the ability to at least try to start the plane using the internal battery.
They kind of liked having more range than the P-39 and installed the forward fuel tank.
Once you get into that 12,000-16,000ft area there wasn't a lot to choose between the different Allisons. 5-6%? The -39 and -73 engines were even closer to the -33 than the -81 engine.
The big differences were down at 2500-9500ft and depended on what boost you could use. The 8.80 geared engines topped out at just under 5000ft and dropped over 300hp by the time they got to 11,500-12,000ft.
The "rated" altitude/s for the Merlin used in the P-40s was 1240hp/11,500ft (about 90hp more than the -39 engine at just about the same altitude) and 1120hp at 18,500ft. or the same power as the -81 engine 3000-3500ft higher. This was using 9lbs of boost (about 48in). In Dec 1942 they approved 61in of boost, unfortunately the pilots manuals have a misprint (at least early ones) and they copied the take-off power rating.
Please note there is difference between the Merlin used in the P-40s and all the British 2 speed engines. The British engines used either 16lbs in low gear (62in?) and 14lbs in high gear (58in ?) or they used 18lbs in both gears in later versions of the engines. Please note that the 18lbs boost engines were rated at lower altitudes, if they flew at the same altitudes as the early engines they gave the same power.
Basically the F & L were the only hope the P-40s had of contesting the airspace above 15,000ft.