P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
P-39 shot down more planes than any other American fighter in Russian service. That was its main combat deployment.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
P-39 shot down more planes than any other American fighter in Russian service. That was its main combat deployment.I make a motion we improve the forum by avioding the P-39 until such time as real-world use and results come into play.
If you look at aerial victories by type and theater, the legacy of the P-39 becomes apparent. First, let's remove the essentially non-participating fighters like the P-26, P-35, P-36, P-43, P-70, F2A, Beaufighter (lend-lease), TBF/TBM, P-61, and the SBD. That leaves the P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, and P-51 (including F-6 and A-36), F4F/FM-2, F6F, and F4U, and Spitfire (only the MTO) which is most of our fighters.
If we just look at the Pacific, the Spitfire wasn't used by the U.S.A. and it drops out. The Lowest total victories is 288 by the P-39/P-400. Next would be 297 by the P-51 since it got to the Pacific essentially at the end of the war. The FM-2 is next at 422, followed by the P-40 with 661. It continues going up from there.
If we get out of the Pacific only and look at the entire war, the lowest victory tally is 321 by the P-39 / P-400, followed by the Spitfire in the MTO/ETO with 379, and it goes up from there.
The Mosquito, P-26, P-35, P-36, P-43, P-70, F2A, and Beaufighter only scored 58 victories combined, so they don't really count as major fighters in service with the U.S.A. . The TBF/TBM outscored them all combined with 98 victories, but isn't a fighter.
So, we have had 100+ pages and all this "it could have been a great airplane" about the fighter with the lowest score of any major fighter in service with the U.S.A. . The P-51, in all theaters, scored 5,954 victories, followed by the F6F with 5,168. Why we are so concerned with the fighter with the least victories in WWII in U.S. service? It was NOT a good airplane for anything other than short-range, low-altitude missions. We didn't fly many of those except to keep the P-39 drivers current in their airplanes.
Yep and none of them used the procedure you outlined.All AAF fighters had multiple internal tanks and carried external tanks. Procedure was the same on all of them.
I assumed combat ends when one side of the combatants are dead, disabled, out of fuel or out of ammunition.Two things that always puzzle and amuse me about these discussions is that combat lasts 15 minutes, does someone ring a bell and say "time to go home" and that it ends where it starts. 360 MPH is 6 miles per minute , on average pilots may end where they start after 15 minutes but they may be anywhere in a 90 mile radius, that is 90 miles closer to base or 90 miles further away. The Fw 190 that landed in south Wales did so because its pilot didn't have a clue where he was and didn't trust his instruments to tell him. Many accounts I have read say the pilots start to figure out where they were when its over, though they may have some awareness while in combat.
This assumes the pilot/s who are at the disadvantage have enough speed, or climb, or altitude or distance between them and their opponents to disengage without winding up first in your list.I assumed combat ends when one side of the combatants are dead, disabled, out of fuel or out of ammunition.
Only if you have a plane good enough to break off, that was the issue with a Spitfire MkV against the Fw 190. There is the other scenario, when you are relieved as an escort it is then your choice how much fuel and ammunition you use on targets of opportunity.I assumed combat ends when one side of the combatants are dead, disabled, out of fuel or out of ammunition.
...The statement was made that the P-39 shot down more enemy aircraft than any other American fighter in Soviet service. So, how many did it shoot down and what is the source for that statement. I have certainly seen the statement in print, have repeated it myself, but have also seen no victory figures with sources to back it up. So, its basically an unsupported statement.
Enough round words of greatness, what are the figures? I hope they imclude sorties, too. including action and non-action sorties.
.. and happily.The British gave the Soviet Union many of their Airacobras, too.
Umm... you DO KNOW that "cooling fan" is what keeps the helicopter airborne, yes?All the helicopter installations used cooling fans.
Early Sikorsky's had their radial engines encased in the nose - plus on most helos, the prop-wash is minimal at the hub.Umm... you DO KNOW that "cooling fan" is what keeps the helicopter airborne, yes?
There you go, spoiling the joke...Early Sikorsky's had their radial engines encased in the nose - plus on most helos, the prop-wash is minimal at the hub.
I know, right?There you go, spoiling the joke...
The Soviets can have them, but I'd preferred that the British had kept their Canadian-made Valentines and Hurricanes. Those two should have gone to North Africa and/or Malaya.The British gave the Soviet Union many of their Airacobras, too.
At what time? In the early days of the war between Germany and Russia it was a conflict that the allies couldn't afford to lose.The Soviets can have them, but I'd preferred that the British had kept their Canadian-made Valentines and Hurricanes. Those two should have gone to North Africa and/or Malaya.