P-39 vs P-40
- Thread starter gjs238
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
CORSNING
Tech Sergeant
Merry Christmas All.
Happy Birthday Jesus.
Happy Birthday Jesus.
I'd suggest to exclude Battle of Moscow from this list. There were some P-40s but too little too late and serviceability was low (not the aircraft's fault). On the other hand, Murmansk should be mentioned.
I'm going to guess you know better than I.
By the way, what do you think of this analysis of why the P-39 did well in Soviet hands. Or do you think it really did?
I think it was good analysis.
SHOULD the P39 have been able to handle the Zero? Was it training or performance?
One thing just came to my mind... That "twitchy" I-16 - in the line of argument (Soviet pilots were accustomed to "twitchy" aircraft). Modern pilots who flew restored I-16s did not always agree with that characteristic. Vladimir Barsuk (designer, manager and test pilot) considered I-16 to be easy flown and stable aircraft.
Kevin J
Banned
P-400. Can I assume that the reason the RAF specified more armour than the P-39D was that its intended use was to attack invasion barges and other small warships like MTB's? In that case, the best use of the P-400 was at Guadalcanal.
Eastern Front. If its true that there was always lots of cloud cover then the low altitude rating of the Allison would not have put either the Cobra or Kittyhawk at a disadvantage, and would certainly have hindered the Luftwaffe tactics of dive down, attack and zoom back up. The Cobra then becomes the better fighter unless its Naval Aviation and its range you want.
Conversely, any variant of the Cobra would have been seriously at risk in North Africa throughout the year, and Italy in the Summer.
As a bomb truck the Kittyhawk is better.
For Coastal Patrol in the Med, the Cobra's low altitude performance and speed would have been useful plus the ability to carry oversized drop tanks.
As an mid altitude escort and air superiority fighter the Merlin powered Warhawk is clearly superior in performance and range. The difference in max speed wouldn't matter.
The Allison powered Kittyhawk with its bigger wing and longer range would be a better bet than the Cobra in the Pacific for Interception, Air Superiority and Escort enabling it to get higher than a similarly powered Cobra.
To me it looks like the Cobra is a niche product.
Perhaps the best use of the Cobra in the USAAF would have been rear areas air defence and certainly not on the front line as at Port Moresby, although maybe the P-400 could have been useful for opposing Japanese landings in New Guinea. Maybe even deploying the P-39D at Hawaii to free up more Warhawks for use in the Western Pacific.
Eastern Front. If its true that there was always lots of cloud cover then the low altitude rating of the Allison would not have put either the Cobra or Kittyhawk at a disadvantage, and would certainly have hindered the Luftwaffe tactics of dive down, attack and zoom back up. The Cobra then becomes the better fighter unless its Naval Aviation and its range you want.
Conversely, any variant of the Cobra would have been seriously at risk in North Africa throughout the year, and Italy in the Summer.
As a bomb truck the Kittyhawk is better.
For Coastal Patrol in the Med, the Cobra's low altitude performance and speed would have been useful plus the ability to carry oversized drop tanks.
As an mid altitude escort and air superiority fighter the Merlin powered Warhawk is clearly superior in performance and range. The difference in max speed wouldn't matter.
The Allison powered Kittyhawk with its bigger wing and longer range would be a better bet than the Cobra in the Pacific for Interception, Air Superiority and Escort enabling it to get higher than a similarly powered Cobra.
To me it looks like the Cobra is a niche product.
Perhaps the best use of the Cobra in the USAAF would have been rear areas air defence and certainly not on the front line as at Port Moresby, although maybe the P-400 could have been useful for opposing Japanese landings in New Guinea. Maybe even deploying the P-39D at Hawaii to free up more Warhawks for use in the Western Pacific.
Last edited:
I would think with good long range drop tanks P-39 might have been useful as a low altitude escort for General Kenneys A-20 and B-25 strafers and Beaufighters. Probably very good for taking out torpedo bombers too.
One of the things that struck me from that 325th Fighter Group documentary was the long (5 months / 130 hours) training period they got on type, on the P-40, plus another 2-3 months in Theater doing 'light duty', low risk convoy escort and so on before the crap really hit the proverbial fan. They also had the benefit of flying with and getting training from highly experienced RAF veterans who knew the P-40 very well.
This is kind of similar to the careful 4 month workup the Soviets gave the P-39, also I think supervised by combat veterans (although new to the type).
I don't think American or Aussie units in the South Pacific had that kind of luxury with any of their planes. Not sure about the Med but it would be interesting to look at training times, especially time allocated for 'training on type' for P-39. I don't think they had much and they also had nobody in the Theater to learn from. Maybe should have imported a few Russians via Iran or something...
One of the things that struck me from that 325th Fighter Group documentary was the long (5 months / 130 hours) training period they got on type, on the P-40, plus another 2-3 months in Theater doing 'light duty', low risk convoy escort and so on before the crap really hit the proverbial fan. They also had the benefit of flying with and getting training from highly experienced RAF veterans who knew the P-40 very well.
This is kind of similar to the careful 4 month workup the Soviets gave the P-39, also I think supervised by combat veterans (although new to the type).
I don't think American or Aussie units in the South Pacific had that kind of luxury with any of their planes. Not sure about the Med but it would be interesting to look at training times, especially time allocated for 'training on type' for P-39. I don't think they had much and they also had nobody in the Theater to learn from. Maybe should have imported a few Russians via Iran or something...
I think it was good analysis.
SHOULD the P39 have been able to handle the Zero? Was it training or performance?
One thing just came to my mind... That "twitchy" I-16 - in the line of argument (Soviet pilots were accustomed to "twitchy" aircraft). Modern pilots who flew restored I-16s did not always agree with that characteristic. Vladimir Barsuk (designer, manager and test pilot) considered I-16 to be easy flown and stable aircraft.
er my bad sorry I forgot we already discussed it...As for I-16 traits, I think it was just one of those fighters you had to get used to. Like a Fw 190.
Shortround6
Major General
The problem is NOT getting to the fight, it is GETTING HOME after the fight. Once you drop the tank you have the internal fuel to fight (at a high rate of consumption) and get home on and getting home means sometimes looking for the home field in low clouds or rain squall that weren't there when you left.
An Allison could burn just under 3 gallons a minute using that extra boost so beloved by P-39 and P-40 fans and about 2.3 gallons a minute at military power. You could go through 46-48 gallons in 5 minutes of WEP and 10 minutes of military power. or over 1/3 of your internal fuel in a 120 gallon P-39. Granted once the fight is over you can drop down to around 0.75 gallon a minute or less but you better hope you didn't further away from base than you can get back to. Sticking drop tanks for combat use (getting to the fight, not actually fighting with) that are bigger than the internal tanks can be a recipe for disaster. Ferry tanks are a different story.
SR6,
Something to consider or to piggyback on what you mentioned regarding the fuel burn once the fight is over. Did they go right to max fuel conservation profile post fight or did they egress the immediate battle area at MIL power for a few minutes to lessen the chance of being bounced? Speed lowers the odds of a successful bounce but shortens the time aloft, and or range.
Cheers,
Biff
Shortround6
Major General
Well, one book on Russian aircraft says that pilots converting to the Mig-3 from I-16 had less trouble than pilots converting from biplanes, in part because whatever quirks the Mig-3 had were at least similar to the ones the I-16 had.
Lets not forget that Russian build quality was, shall we say, not the best. An I-16 that was assembled correctly (proper CG location and all that stuff) and rigged properly may be quite different than than one operating on the ragged limit of proper CG location with controls that are misaligned. I would venture to guess that any I-16 operating today is much better built/aligned and in spec than well over 90% of the wartime I-16s.
Shortround6
Major General
I think that that was one of the big differences between flying/fighting in Europe and flying/fighting in the Pacific (or perhaps CBI?) Over occupied Europe they very often kept the speed high all the way back to the coast even if not a military or max continuous settings. Once they were over water it was a judgement call as to when to start slowing down/conserving fuel.
In the Pacific once you were 50 miles or so from the enemy base or target it may have been common practice to slow down to 200mph or so for the rest of the trip back.
Some navy data sheets actually figure operational radius that way, and cruise to and from the target is in single digits for thousands of feet.
No AA guns in the middle of the ocean to dodge.
Kevin J
Banned
The Australians relegated their P-39D's to rear area air defence and recce duties so I guess they figured out that their usefulness was limited in the South Western Pacific, but then they had the benefit of hindsight.
Kevin J
Banned
If you look at the wings of the I-16 and Mig-3, I think you'll find them remarkably similar in shape and that the Mig-1 is actually an evolution of the I-16.
wuzak
Captain
Or it could have simply been that the RAF regarded the P-39D as having insufficient armour.
Kevin J
Banned
Don't know the answer to that. All I know is that they only used it for beating up trawlers and barges. I really can't think of any use for the plane other than as an anti-invasion ground attack fighter. It simply never had the altitude performance required for use by the RAF for anything other than ground attack. Once the threat of invasion is over with the Russians stalling the Germans in the East, it really is of no further use to them, whichever way you look at it.
Shortround6
Major General
A lot of fighters squadrons were "trained" by beating up trawlers and barges on their first few missions into enemy airspace. It gave a small taste of combat while limiting the exposure to enemy counter measures.
Fly across the channel, find something floating in the water (not even a train on dry land), shoot it up and scoot for home before any German fighters show up (hopefully).
This was still being done in late 1943 with US P-47 and P-51 squadrons. A few fighter sweeps over coast of Belgium or Holland or France before starting escort missions, and the first few escort missions would be short ones, not into Germany as a combat debut. Bomber units followed a similar path. Bomb a coastal target in France first, then inland targets then deeper raids.
The British used one squadron of P-39s for about a couple of weeks before giving up, they never got out of the training stage. The squadron may have had the P-39 for it longer but it takes time to change to a new plane, they had stopped flying operations.
I don't think we can draw an conclusions as to how the British planned to use the P-39 from that very limited combat use.
Fly across the channel, find something floating in the water (not even a train on dry land), shoot it up and scoot for home before any German fighters show up (hopefully).
This was still being done in late 1943 with US P-47 and P-51 squadrons. A few fighter sweeps over coast of Belgium or Holland or France before starting escort missions, and the first few escort missions would be short ones, not into Germany as a combat debut. Bomber units followed a similar path. Bomb a coastal target in France first, then inland targets then deeper raids.
The British used one squadron of P-39s for about a couple of weeks before giving up, they never got out of the training stage. The squadron may have had the P-39 for it longer but it takes time to change to a new plane, they had stopped flying operations.
I don't think we can draw an conclusions as to how the British planned to use the P-39 from that very limited combat use.
Shortround6
Major General
British Aircobras had 20mm Hispanos unless we are talking about a later batch? Possibly lend lease?
