P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
I don't think so. P-39 was at Port Moresby in April '42. P-38 got into sustained combat in the Pacific and N. Africa in late '42. AAF would have ben hard pressed in '42 without the P-39.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't think so. P-39 was at Port Moresby in April '42. P-38 got into sustained combat in the Pacific and N. Africa in late '42. AAF would have ben hard pressed in '42 without the P-39.Wasn't the P-38 earlier in the combat than P-39?
The Curtiss P-40...What will you use for fighters in 1942? P-38 didn't get into combat until late '42.
A clean P-40E could not get to 20000' without climb falling below 1000fpm, the minimum for combat and speed topped out at 340mph at only 15000ft. Cold meat for any Zero or 109/190.The Curtiss P-40...
I don't think so. P-39 was at Port Moresby in April '42. P-38 got into sustained combat in the Pacific and N. Africa in late '42. AAF would have ben hard pressed in '42 without the P-39.
Once the XP-39 was discovered what it really was by NACA, I'd cancel it all together and have Bell making the P-38s under licence.
When the shortcomings of the P39 sank in, that big shiny new plant in Niagara built by Uncle Sam for Larry Bell could have been switched over to P40 production. This would have relieved Curtiss's overcrowded facility in downtown Buffalo, just down the road, as at that time, the new Bell plant was still tooling up. With no P39 the Soviets would have made better use of the P40 and never missed the P39. The P40 was a more versatile fighter and in short supply in 1941-42.What will you use for fighters in 1942? P-38 didn't get into combat until late '42.
You do realize that the early P-40s saw action against Axis aircraft prior to 1942 and was able to hold it's own, right?A clean P-40E could not get to 20000' without climb falling below 1000fpm, the minimum for combat and speed topped out at 340mph at only 15000ft. Cold meat for any Zero or 109/190.
Wasn't the P-38 earlier in the combat than P-39?
The Curtiss P-40...
You do realize that the early P-40s saw action against Axis aircraft prior to 1942 and was able to hold it's own, right?
The bulk of engagements occurred at lower altitudes and the P-40 was proven to best the A6M and KI-43 as long as it maintained it's speed in a fight (i.e.: force the enemy to fight on the P-40's terms).
That's pretty much common knowledge - plus the P-36 and P-40 fought alongside each other at Pearl Harbor.Not enough of them, and they were based on an older design, the P-36.
You apparently missed where I stated A6M AND KI-43 in my post, which did not have anything to do with the AVG specifically.I believe that the P-40s with the AVG didn't fight Zeros, they fought Oscars and Nates. Zeros were naval fighters, and the AVG was up against Japanese Army units.
The P-39D fought over New Guinea in April 1942. By the end of 1942 P-39s had claimed 80 Japanese aircraft.
The first P-38 in action was the F-4, an unarmed photo recon version of the P-38E, in April 1942. The fighter version followed, shooting down their first Japanese aircraft in August 1942. That same month a P-38 based in Iceland shot down a Fw-200.
It wasn't so much which went into action first, it was production. The P-39 used one V-1710, the P-38 used two. In 1942 there were more P-39s than p-38s. In 1941, you could build P-39s faster than P-38s, so there were more P-39s available.
A P-38 in the field required more mechanic time to maintain, more oil & fuel per mission, and twice the number of engine parts such as spark plugs compared to the P-39. To get fighters in place quickly in 1942, you used the single engined ones.
That's pretty much common knowledge - plus the P-36 and P-40 fought alongside each other at Pearl Harbor.
You apparently missed where I stated A6M AND KI-43 in my post, which did not have anything to do with the AVG specifically.
The P-40 did fight both, the A6M being prevelant in the defence of Australia and the Solomons/New Guinea campaigns early on.
There could have been, if Bell Niagara had been tooled for P40 production in place of P39. Alternate assembly lines could have allowed newer or modified models to go on line without pausing production to retool the one and only production facility. E's and perhaps F's sooner and in greater quantities.Not enough of them, and they were based on an older design, the P-36.
With Bell making P-38s instead the P-39s, there can be more of P-38s than historically. They also have far better range & radius, a thing that was a crucial asset in Pacific; better turn of spedd and climb from 10000 ft on are another nods for the P-38.
P-38 could do the missions P-39 could do, while vice-versa is not true. P-39 is incapable of escorting the bombers beyond 150-200 miles, the P-38 can do more than twice of that. P-38 can intercept Japanese flying at 17000 ft and above, P-39 not so well.
As above - Bell making P-38s means there is more P-38s to come by, even if it might be 4:9 ratio in favor of P-39.
That is true.
However, if you look at production, in 1941 the USAAF accepted 205 P-38s and 926 P-39s for the entire year.
Through the end of April 1942 they accepted 325 more P-38s and 486 P-39s.
That gives you 530 P-38s and 1412 P-39s for a total of 1942 (!) by the end of April 1942.
You just were not going to ramp up P-38 production any faster.
If you used Bell to make P-38s, then you'd at best make half as many P-38s as P-39s were built there due to engine supply. That means you've have 1236 fighters instead of 1942.
I don't see having 706 fewer fighters as being an advantage.
In case I botched the math, you can see the production figures here:
U.S.A.A.F. Fighter Monthly Acceptances (1940-1946)
Here's a performance graph of the P-39K (basically same as P-39D), A6M2 Zero in red and P-40E in green. Blue is P-39 climb at 3000rpm. All straight from wwiiaircraftperformance.With Bell making P-38s instead the P-39s, there can be more of P-38s than historically. They also have far better range & radius, a thing that was a crucial asset in Pacific; better turn of spedd and climb from 10000 ft on are another nods for the P-38.
P-38 could do the missions P-39 could do, while vice-versa is not true. P-39 is incapable of escorting the bombers beyond 150-200 miles, the P-38 can do more than twice of that. P-38 can intercept Japanese flying at 17000 ft and above, P-39 not so well.
As above - Bell making P-38s means there is more P-38s to come by, even if it might be 4:9 ratio in favor of P-39.
Here's a performance graph of the P-39K (basically same as P-39D), A6M2 Zero in red and P-40E in green. Blue is P-39 climb at 3000rpm. All straight from wwiiaircraftperformance.
The P-40E is barely faster than the Zero at 15000ft but falls off rapidly above that and will not climb to 20000ft and maintain 1000fpm climb rate. P-40E is deficient to P39 in all respects and barely as fast as the Zero. This is mid '42 and P-38 Lightning is not available yet.
Those were the versions available in mid 1942. By October the improved P-39s and P-40s with the 9.6 supercharged engines would be in production but the P-40 always lagged behind the P-39 in performance since they were about 600lbs heavier. The much improved Merlin P-40F had about the exact same performance as that P-39K on the graph. And the K model was about the same as the D model. And these were the 7650lb versions which could have been significantly lighter.Let's pick the least capable P-40 and the least capable Zero, while picking the most capable P-39 and draw conclusions? Sorry - no.
Lighting is available already in 1941.
I'm sure your math is correct; the production of P-38s at Lockheed was not something they will be able to brag about until well into 1942.
Striving just to have as many fighters as possible while not looking at what the fighters are capable for might be a bad math for the USAAC in 1942, however. The P-39, as a fighter that was ill able to cover the area 200-300-400 miles away from the base, was heavily criticized by Gen Kenney.