Production rate versus type effectiveness

KrazyKraut said:

The Ju 88 was originally designed as a fast bomber with a very thin body, 2 men crew and close to no defensive armament (1 light machinegun). Very similar to what the Mosquito later would become. There were always problems with the bomb bay being too small for 250 let alone 500 kg bombs. Nevertheless it could carry up to 28 50 kg bombs internally (1400kg). Maybe you should be a little more respectful and search twice before calling one of the best planes of the war pathetic?

Click to expand...

There was also option to carry bombs up to 1800 kg externally. I am not sure about the exact layout, one German primary source notes 2 x 1800 kg, another is a bit unclear wheter the 1800kg bomb was only possible as an assymetrical external load or not..

In any case, the Ju 88A was hugely versatile, and I am not meaning the airframe's adaptability here, but the very single Ju 88A-4 type, you could use it as light fast bomber against soft targets with internal load of 1400 kg as you mentioned (the speed w/o the external racks was pretty high, 510 km/h);
it could carry some very heavy loads if needed and large bombs if needed - true only externally, but still it was as fast as any other medium even in this condition; it could act as a dive bomber, or equipped with cannon and MG pods for ground attack...

Do we have data for bomber cruising speed and endurance while carrying a payload? Specifically I would like to see:

He-111H while carrying 8 x 250kg bombs in the bomb bay.

Ju-88A while carrying 2,000kg externally on hardpoints.

davebender said:

Do we have data for bomber cruising speed and endurance while carrying a payload? Specifically I would like to see:

He-111H while carrying 8 x 250kg bombs in the bomb bay.

Ju-88A while carrying 2,000kg externally on hardpoints.

Click to expand...

To get a complete picture you need cruise speed as a function of altitude also.

In fact to get truly analytical for range estimates you need the complete mission profile to take off, form up, climb to cruise altitude, set and manage rpm and manifold pressure, make some judgements about changes in speed (or altitude) as fuel is consumed, changes after loads are dropped, etc.

Cruise speed is never truly a constant. Close approximations exist for say a formation of B-17s with a set altitude and a requirement to fly at the speed that older ships can maintain (i.e 150IAS at 25,000 feet). Fighters 'essing over a bomber stream might also be at a fairly constant IAS for the duration of close escort.

Kurfürst said:

In any case, the Ju 88A was hugely versatile, and I am not meaning the airframe's adaptability here, but the very single Ju 88A-4 type, you could use it as light fast bomber against soft targets with internal load of 1400 kg as you mentioned (the speed w/o the external racks was pretty high, 510 km/h)

Click to expand...

True, but it might have been better two split the production into two series: One with the original layout and 2 seat cockpit and one that would become the A-series. The plane would have been a lot more impressive as a fast bomber without the extra weight of the dive bombing equipment, crew defensive armament, bomb racks etc.

Drgndog, thank you for the reply. I have always been fascinated by the P-39 and have tried to understand more about the politics that went into its manufacture and supply to the USSR (considering its supposed reputation).

The soviet pilots preferred the P-39 to the P-40's and Hurricanes that they received. Yet by popular accounts in the West the P-39 was a death trap and the P-40 and Hurricane were solid performers that in the hands of trained pilots could be very effective.

What is it about the Russian application that made the P-39 appealing?

I think the Soviets liked the P-39 because it was 'modern' - sleek, tricycle landing gear, comfortable cabin (when the big gun wasn't in use), but most of all they liked the 37mm gun + 2 50's in the nose. Remember - these are pilots who were taught to get close, closer, before opening up - and they're al medium to low altitudes where the Cobra was responsive.

Interesting that both the Mig-15 and Mig-17 carried on the same legacy of the 37.

There is a website devoted to USSR Lend-Lease material - operated from Russia but with links to University of Buffalo, NY. (sorry, no URL but google it if you're interested). They have great P-39 photo collections and pilot interview transcripts.

The WW2 legacy of Bell and the Russians is, I believe, very note worthy. I just wish people would stop bad-mouthing the P-39. The Russians didn't bust tanks with the 37mm - they only received HE rounds from the US, no AP. The Aircobras flew top cover on the IL Sturmaviks and there were real fur ball fights.

I'd welcome on lines posts with anyone who can bring additional light on the hands-on use of the P-39 or P-63 (any ex-P-63 Pinball pilots out there?).

I knew Chuck Yeager had no combat time in P-39's but he DID do his advanced fighter training in it - and - he liked the cordite fumes in the cockpit (it's claimed). Yeager and the Russians.

Chairs,

MM
Toronto

I suspect this is the reason the P-39 did ok in V.V.S. service. CAS aircraft typically fly below 5,000 feet. The P-39 performs best at this altitude.

michaelmaltby said:

Drgndog, thank you for the reply. I have always been fascinated by the P-39 and have tried to understand more about the politics that went into its manufacture and supply to the USSR (considering its supposed reputation).

The soviet pilots preferred the P-39 to the P-40's and Hurricanes that they received. Yet by popular accounts in the West the P-39 was a death trap and the P-40 and Hurricane were solid performers that in the hands of trained pilots could be very effective.

What is it about the Russian application that made the P-39 appealing?

Dave Bender is correct from all I have read and heard. The strike zone for that Allison was SL to about 15K[/B]

I think the Soviets liked the P-39 because it was 'modern' - sleek, tricycle landing gear, comfortable cabin (when the big gun wasn't in use), but most of all they liked the 37mm gun + 2 50's in the nose. Remember - these are pilots who were taught to get close, closer, before opening up - and they're al medium to low altitudes where the Cobra was responsive.

I believe they junked the 37 and put the 23 in as replacement. Don't know much about Sov attitude toward 'sleek' - Lol. God knows they had enough a/c types that remind one of 'Olga' from fat farm.

Interesting that both the Mig-15 and Mig-17 carried on the same legacy of the 37.

The MiG 37 was one helluva lot better weapon than our worthless POS

There is a website devoted to USSR Lend-Lease material - operated from Russia but with links to University of Buffalo, NY. (sorry, no URL but google it if you're interested). They have great P-39 photo collections and pilot interview transcripts.

The WW2 legacy of Bell and the Russians is, I believe, very note worthy. I just wish people would stop bad-mouthing the P-39. The Russians didn't bust tanks with the 37mm - they only received HE rounds from the US, no AP. The Aircobras flew top cover on the IL Sturmaviks and there were real fur ball fights.

I'd welcome on lines posts with anyone who can bring additional light on the hands-on use of the P-39 or P-63 (any ex-P-63 Pinball pilots out there?).

I knew Chuck Yeager had no combat time in P-39's but he DID do his advanced fighter training in it - and - he liked the cordite fumes in the cockpit (it's claimed). Yeager and the Russians.

Chairs,

MM
Toronto

Click to expand...

Yeager by personal account respected the 39 as a low altitude fighter but would never have chosen it over a 51. He did like its ability to turn.

Just about everybody that flew it knew it was susceptible to snapping inta a spin and that the spin was near 'non-recoverable'..

An example of just how effective the iron dog was for US pilots is that only ONE made ace in it.

Thunderbolt56 said:

I'll see what I can find, but this is a good comparison that can be reflected in the Tiger-vs-Sherman tanks. The Tiger was hands-down preferred, but in the time it took to produce one Tiger, the big automakers could produce a dozen Shermans...or more.

Click to expand...

In a couple of his books about tanks, Steven J. Zaloga wrote that although the Panther (and Tiger) had superior firepower and armor to the Sherman in a 1-on-1 gunfight, the results of tank engagements depended more on who got off the first shot, more than anything else, and that the old saying that 1 Panther or Tiger was worth 5 Shermans was hogwash.

I understand that the soviets liked the equipment of the P-39´s:
Reliable radio equipment and very good reflector gunsights to name two of the more important ones.

The Soviet attitude towards pilots was: we'll take 100 trainees, let the two-left-feet ones kill themselves in basic training, let the Germans kill the barely competent and unlucky ones in early combat, and after some hours of combat take the 4-5 that are left, pick the best of that 4-5, and put him into a 'guards' regiment which had foreign planes or top or the line latest russian planes.

No wonder the Russian pilots did well on the P-39. They were in the top 1%.

Fighter pilots are expensive to train. Even in WWII Russia. You cannot afford to throw their lives away as if they were conscript infantry.

Thanks to all who have picked up the P-39 thread. It's great to encounter people as interested (and more qualified) as I am on this subject.

I would add a few thoughts to the last few posts.

I do NOT believe the soviets pulled the Oldsmobile canon from the P-39 and replaced it with a 23mm. The British-ordered P-400 (Caribou) which the Brits declared unsuitable used a 20mm instead of the Olds 37 - and some of these P-400's went to the soviets directly from Britain. Other P-400's went to the Pacific for use by the USAAF. BUT - the Bell-delivered P-39s all used the Olds canon, along with the subsequent P-63 KIngcobra.

On the the subject of the Mig-15/17 using the 37 mm - I don't doubt that the Mig gun was far superior to the Olds. The Olds was known to jam and must have been tough to maintain - squeezed into the nose along with the 2 x 50's. The soviets - always great improvisers - designed to Mig's 37mm to be cranked down on cables, serviced, and then re-positioned.

There's much talk (not on this thread) about the poor results from mixing weapons with different muzzle velocities (37, 50's and 30's). I don't think this made much difference in the soviet application. They removed the 4 x 30's in the wings to save weight (ironic that P-39's revoved from lake bottoms often have canned [US foood aid] stuffed into the empty 30 wing cavities]. If you train/expect your pilots to close to near collision [ramming] range before opening up, the difference in spread between the 50's and the 37 become almost a mute point. At that range, even if the 37 malfunctioned, the 50's will do the job - just not as quickly perhaps.

The point about gunsights, better radios, self-sealing gas tanks all contribute to why the soviet pilots liked their "little Cobras". They also were considered very safe in wheels-up landings.

Soviet pilots came to Buffalo NY at various times dueing WW2 to consult with Bell engineers - and yes, the notorious 'fatal flat spin' was discussed. The soviets didn't consider it a show-stopper the way US and Brit pilots did. (Remember that the early years of the Martin B-26 were marred by the reputation 'Widow Maker' - altho competent demonstrated that the aircraft was controllable). After one such visit, Larry Bell is reputed to have said (see Larry Bell biography) to those close to him: "We might as well be pushing these planes into the lake for all we're learning about how the Russians are using them" (paraphrased). Bell also wanted to issue Bell zippos to the soviets (but I believe that idea was nixed).

I agree with the 1% line of reasoning expressed above. The Guards Regiments got the good stuff. As the war progressed, soviet fighters got better and better so the distinction between US and domestic production was reduced somewhat. Nonetheless - those that were issued US-built aircraft knew they were fotunate.

As to the view that pilots (even the USSR) are expensive to train. Agreed. But when collective workers got 2-3 hours training on T-34 tanks is it unsurprising that the leadership saw no disconnect in throwing waves of aircraft at the Germans - I mean - look at German Ace totals on the Eastern Front. Rudel was getting kills with Ju-87's.

Is anyone in this community familiar with an alleged 'Group 777' like the Chenault Tigers only flying P-39's? The scenario is clever - right down to Putin bringing medals to issue surviving volunteers ... but while "truthy" I think the wholw thing is a gamer's scenario. Can anyone confirm on this?

I close with this Lend Lease (USSR) web url which I refer you to. The numbers and details are fascinating:

Aircraft Deliveries

From this link you can navigate to the airtcrast pix and first-person accounts.

Chairs,

MM
Toronto

michaelmaltby said:

Thanks to all who have picked up the P-39 thread. It's great to encounter people as interested (and more qualified) as I am on this subject.

I would add a few thoughts to the last few posts.

I do NOT believe the soviets pulled the Oldsmobile canon from the P-39 and replaced it with a 23mm. The British-ordered P-400 (Caribou) which the Brits declared unsuitable used a 20mm instead of the Olds 37 - and some of these P-400's went to the soviets directly from Britain. Other P-400's went to the Pacific for use by the USAAF. BUT - the Bell-delivered P-39s all used the Olds canon, along with the subsequent P-63 KIngcobra.

I am checking other references. First the D-1 which was the Lend Lease version to both RAF and USSR replaced the 37mm M4 with the 20mm Hispano. Quite a few of these were delivered to Soviets by Bell with the Hispano.

Second the succeeding versions including the P-39N and Q as well as the P-63 were delivered with the 37mm M4.

I know I have seen references to the both the Hispano and the M4 being replaced by the 23mm because of a.) continued jamming problems, and b.) logistical availability of the 23mm. Until I find those references I stand corrected

Aircraft Deliveries

From this link you can navigate to the airtcrast pix and first-person accounts.

Chairs,

MM
Toronto

Click to expand...

Unfortunately for USAAF, the Iron Dog was a fish out of water in the Solomons against a vastly superior Zero in manueverability. Had the engine had more power the story might have been different.

As far as ground attack it probably was superior to the P-40, but the P-40 was preferred by the Commonwealth and it apperaed to be a better choice in air combat against the 109, and that was the end of that for Western Allies.

All true - altho the Wildcat - as delivered to the Cactus AF - was also outclassed by the Zero - and like the P-39 - went on to modification and continued production by GM right up to the war's end.

Humor me a little here - the P-39 was called Iron Dog for a good reason. But the blame for that moniker goes to USAAF decision makers, not Larry Bell and his design team. A fully turbocharged P-39 with 20 mm canon might have done very well in the Solomons - we'll never know.

As I admitted in my first post: I'm fascinated by the "poltics" of weapon production - especially aircraft. And I love the "one man's meat is another's poison" factor. The P-39 was overshadowed by the P-38 in the minds of USAAF planners (rightly so). The P-39 was designed around the Olds canon. While not quite the case with the P-38 - it too was originally armed with the big gun.

History - especially wartime history - is full of delicious twists and ironies. I see the development and deployment of the Bell platforms as examples of those twists and turns. Did it change the course of the war - certainly not. But did it reveal the thinking of both Americans and soviets (and alter their respective views on subsequent production): most definately yes.

[I'm willing to bet that there were Soviet pilots flying Mig-15's against Sabres and B-29's in Korea, 1951 that flew P-39's and/or P-63's against the Japanese in 1945. Not unreasonable, is it? I'd love confirmation]

BTB - have you encountered this mythical 777 American volunteer group serving in Russia - that I referenced?

michaelmaltby said:

All true - altho the Wildcat - as delivered to the Cactus AF - was also outclassed by the Zero - and like the P-39 - went on to modification and continued production by GM right up to the war's end.

Very true. It served the USSR well and was replaced by better fighters more aligned with eveolving USAAF tactics after 1942. The 39 and the 400's were what we had - and that is what we fought with early along with the P-40

Humor me a little here - the P-39 was called Iron Dog for a good reason. But the blame for that moniker goes to USAAF decision makers, not Larry Bell and his design team. A fully turbocharged P-39 with 20 mm canon might have done very well in the Solomons - we'll never know.

True, and the same can be said for the P-51A/A-36. A bastard stepchild until the airwar in ETO splashed cold water on the strategic bombing doctrine that said the bombers could get through with no escort.

Here is one reference regarding replacement of the 37mm M4 and the 20mm M1 by USSR but not clear if immediate or mid operations when spare parts were scarce.

Airacobras in the Soviet Union





As I admitted in my first post: I'm fascinated by the "poltics" of weapon production - especially aircraft. And I love the "one man's meat is another's poison" factor. The P-39 was overshadowed by the P-38 in the minds of USAAF planners (rightly so). The P-39 was designed around the Olds canon. While not quite the case with the P-38 - it too was originally armed with the big gun.

The P-38, like the P-47 was designed as high altitude interceptor - hence the focus on high altitude performance and firepower

History - especially wartime history - is full of delicious twists and ironies. I see the development and deployment of the Bell platforms as examples of those twists and turns. Did it change the course of the war - certainly not. But did it reveal the thinking of both Americans and soviets (and alter their respective views on subsequent production): most definately yes.

[I'm willing to bet that there were Soviet pilots flying Mig-15's against Sabres and B-29's in Korea, 1951 that flew P-39's and/or P-63's against the Japanese in 1945. Not unreasonable, is it? I'd love confirmation]

There was a high percentage of MiG 15 aces that were Guards pilots in WWII - have no idea whether theu flew against Japanese - but certainly against the Germans in P-39s

BTB - have you encountered this mythical 777 American volunteer group serving in Russia - that I referenced?

Click to expand...

I have heard of it through the usual internet references - as one squadron deployed in 1942 and returned in 1944 but can fine no official reference at AFHRC

Thanks for the clarifications. Your reference to the P-51A/A-36 system is another "ironic" twist. The specs were from the RAF and were essentially intended for Curtis - as I understand it - but N. American said - "why not design a new platform" - and not just refine the P-40. And the N.American team came up with the Allison-powered P-51 [roughly the same price as as a Curtis P-40].

As the A-36 dive bomber in Italy and the Med, it reportedly acquitted itself very well ... BUT ... it was the marriage of the airframe and laminar-flow wings to the RR Merlin ... that created the dream machine.

I've always been a fan of the razorback Mustangs and Thunderbots - especially in camo.

Back to Russian P-39's for just a sec. Quoting from memory (faulty): The Allisons in the P-39's had a 45 hr service life. The soviets were burning them up after 35 hrs. Partly this a factor from poor-quality aviation fuel. Partly it is a factor of pilot's using combat power more than Allison-GM had calculated on. I don't know any source of engine-change rate in the USSR for Merlins - the soviets were opperating both Spitfires and Hurricanes.

I have always thought [perhaps unfairly] that the US failed to produce a really good in-line engine throughout WW2. I love the sound of Allision engines but .... Where the US triumphed (over the germans, japanese and brits) was in developing great air-cooled radial engines. From the Jug to the B-29.

Did you take in the news within the last day or two that the Soviet pilot [claimed] that shot down Senator McCain died of cancer in Moscow ...? Talk about IRONY and twists and turns.

Chairs,

MM
Toronto

michaelmaltby said:

Thanks for the clarifications. Your reference to the P-51A/A-36 system is another "ironic" twist. The specs were from the RAF and were essentially intended for Curtis - as I understand it - but N. American said - "why not design a new platform" - and not just refine the P-40. And the N.American team came up with the Allison-powered P-51 [roughly the same price as as a Curtis P-40].

A slightly different view was that the RAF was on a buying mission for P-40's and Curtis was out of capacity trying to fill USAAF orders. NAA was able to convince the RAF that they had ability to a.) design a better fighter, and b.) achieve the same production numbers as Curtis if they built another plant.

The price for the P-51A was about 10K/unit higher on initial order but the Curtis team couldn't deliver to RAF schedule at any price.

As the A-36 dive bomber in Italy and the Med, it reportedly acquitted itself very well ... BUT ... it was the marriage of the airframe and laminar-flow wings to the RR Merlin ... that created the dream machine.

Unquestionably - and the Mustang I/P-51A and A-36 were all flying low to medium altitude missions - either Recce or fighter bomber. While not as good against 109 and 190 comparatively, the 51A still was a relatively close match in those engagements

Did you take in the news within the last day or two that the Soviet pilot [claimed] that shot down Senator McCain died of cancer in Moscow ...? Talk about IRONY and twists and turns.

Chairs,

MM
Toronto

Click to expand...

McCain was shot down by an SA-2 SAM.. what was the alleged connection with a Soviet fighter pilot?

Hello Drgondog
only few Soviet AF Cobras had their M4s replaced by 23mm cannon, vast majority fought with M4.

Juha

Juha said:

Hello Drgondog
only few Soviet AF Cobras had their M4s replaced by 23mm cannon, vast majority fought with M4.

Juha

Click to expand...

Good to know, as I had heard and read differently.. what about the Hispanos on the D-1? About 300 were delivered to USSR IIRC and all armed with Hispano's.

I believe those delivered to the soviets with 20 mm Hispanos were originally RAF-ordered. The RAF tppk no P-39's (P-400's) with the Olds gun.

MM