SHOULD the P39 have been able to handle the Zero? Was it training or performance?

Peter Gunn said:

Look, you seem like an intelligent and well read guy, I suggest you read drgondogs post #256 carefully and take it to heart. As I've said, I think the P-39 is one of the best looking fighters of WWII, and I believe that low down over the steppes of Russia it found its niche. But as literally ANYTHING else it was next to useless.

As I stated ( and others as well ), it DID NOT have the performance needed to escort 8th AF bombers ( Range, Speed, Climb, Firepower were all lacking ( dreadfully so ) ) so it was useless to 8th FC.

It DID NOT have the ability to be a bomb truck so it was useless to the 9th AF as its inability to haul any type of useful load any distance squashed that idea.

It DID NOT have the ability to serve as an interceptor regardless of your claims of its outstanding rate of climb ( which seems to have escaped the attention of all the silly pilots that actually flew ( and hated ) the plane ).

As I said earlier, no argument, just fact.

Lastly, referencing the bold type above, I REALLY think you need to catch up on the history of the air war in WWII, because that kind of statement can totally undermine any other argument ( no matter how good ) you bring to the table.

As I said, I think you're an intelligent and well read guy, I hope you'll stick around and learn from some of the most knowledgeable folks on WWII aircraft on the net. ( myself excluded )

Cheers.

Click to expand...

And I dare add:
IT COULD HAVE BEEN (WAS) under some circumstances of the flight envelope, very dangerous, exactly for the distibution of weights that was chosen ( I repeat: for things related to moment of inertia and angular momentum, that some people here seem to ignore and probably believe void of significance in the design of an aeroplane). And to cure that there was no increase of manifold pressure or other tricks that could change things: just to change an unsuccesful design, as the American airplane industry rightly did.
Of course every aeroplane must be treated with the utmost respect, but it is much much different to handle a Spitfire or a Macchi 202 and to handle a P-39: in all videos about P-39 the "Instructor" always tell his pupils "to handle it carefully".
To the Russians, who never were too worried for the lives of their pilots, this did not seem to have been of particular importance, but for the American, British, Australian, Italian pilots, that were particularly attached to their skins, it was...

buffnut453 said:

There is a former B-17 crewman who frequents this forum whom, I suspect, would disagree with you.


I don't think I've ever seen a more partial perspective on WW2. America gained nothing from WW2? Really? Apart from becoming a global superpower, a role that it has maintained in the intervening 70+ since 1945.

As for "bailing out Britain", please remember that Britain had already ensured its own security in the summer of 1940. It's also worth pointing out that, had Britain not prevailed, America would have been surrounded by totalitarian regimes, with virtually the entire globe being carved up between Hitler, Stalin and Tojo. How would America have fared under those circumstances without the ability to influence world affairs and with no launching point for any liberation of Europe?

Click to expand...

I beg to differ, gentleman, based on 2 factors, all British-- I have little trust or faith in a Nation who gave the world: (1) Neville Chamberlain, who bent over backwards to Hitler in the Czech "Peace In Our Time" scenario--(2) Churchill, who proved his military prowess in WW1 at Gallipoli-a major FUBAR, later repeated at Dieppe! .

I am not saying we should have Not been involved in WW2- but only against the Japanese, Pearl Harbor nonwithstanding. If we had all our resources that went to Churchill and the ETO marshalled in the PTO--we might have defeated Japan earlier, and hopefully with less loss of American lives.

I have 2 uncles who flew in WW2- one was a Naval aviator, flew Corsair F-4U aircraft in the PTO in 1944-1945, and survived, one who few on a B-17 crew in the ETO-- bailed out on a Polesti oil field mission, and spent 13 months in a Luftwaffe run Stalag (Stockade) POW camp. He survived also.

Did we become a "World Power"-- yes. But remember, "absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

Hansie Bloeckmann said:

I beg to differ, gentleman, based on 3 factors, all British-- I have little trust or faith in a Nation who gave the world: (1) Neviile Chamberlain, who bent over backwards to Hitler in the Czech "Peace In Our Time" scenario--(2) Fat old cigar chomper Winnie Churchill, who proved his military prowess in WW1 at Gallipoli-a major FUBAR, later repeated at Dieppe, although that fiasco was Not Winnie's planning- (2) A King who didn't want the job-- Bertie Windsor was King because his older brother David Windsor passed up a Coronation for some cheap American floozie, who was twice divorced-- Not proper form, Davey-Boy-not proper form at all.

I am not saying we should have Not been involved in WW2- but only against the Japanese, Pearl Harbor nonwithstanding. If we had all our resources that went to Churchill and the ETO marshalled in the PTO--we might have defeated Japan earlier, and hopefully with less loss of American lives.

I have 2 uncles who flew in WW2- one was a Naval aviator, flew Corsair F-4U aircraft in the PTO in 1944-1945, and survived, one who few on a B-17 crew in the ETO-- bailed out on a Polesti oil field mission, and spent 13 months in a Luftwaffe run Stalag (Stockade) POW camp. He survived also.

Did we become a "World Power"-- yes, but at what a price. Then followed the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, Korea and later, Vietnam, and we, as an emerging World Power, became, somehow, the great Policeman of the World. A daunting task in the 1950's and the "Ike years", even more daunting yet today with the threat from the Mid-Eastern Muslim oriented power bloc.

Click to expand...

This clearly needs another thread so this will be my last post on this topic, although I'm bemused at your blaming Britain (or, at least, certain Britons) for all ills and yet not admitting to any American mistakes...and that in a post that also mentions Vietnam. The irony couldn't be more amusing.

Before I go, however, please note that it was Hitler who declared war on America, not the other way around. America didn't choose to enter the European war because Hitler brought it to America.

P-39 Expert said:

Your link to the FW190 is interesting in that it is dated December 1, 1943 and in the first paragraph says that this investigation is to increase boost in the FW190A8 which began production in Feb 1944. A FW190A5 was used as test bed since they had the same engine. These increases in boost were obviously never put into service as the performance graphs for the A6 and A8 (both later models) do not reflect these performance increases. Go to the site that your link is from, wwiiaircraftperformance.org and look up the FW190A8.

Click to expand...

The increased boost was certainly used on the Fw 190A8, going from previous limit of 1.42 ata to 1.58 or 1.65. Against the previous climbs done at 2400 rpm, the climb at 2700 rpm using as much of the boost as possible reduced time to 8 km by more than 1/4. Shaded areas on the speed & climb graph show performance when over-boost ('Erhoehte Notleistung') was used. Text also notes that overboost via C3 injection was allowed for both S/C speeds, allowed up to 10 minutes. Hopefuly your German is up to the speed, if not the 3rd pic is the translated perf graph:

Hansie Bloeckmann said:

I beg to differ, gentleman, based on 3 factors, all British-- I have little trust or faith in a Nation who gave the world: (1) Neviile Chamberlain, who bent over backwards to Hitler in the Czech "Peace In Our Time" scenario--
Omissis

Click to expand...

MODE O.T. ON
Note that the bombing of Guernica (April 26, 1937) had been a year and a few months before the Munich Conference (September 1938). The bombing of Guernica was extremely publicized and overrated in negative by the Western Powers, which pointed out the high number of deaths



Guernica, by Pablo Picasso, oil on canvas, 351x782 cm, 1937

and overvalued positively by the Axis, which were eager to show an air power that they did not actually possess in 1938.
And this were times where the people thought " the bomber always will pass".
How many Squadrons of modern fighters did exist in Great Britain in September 1938?
From September 1938, after the return homeland of Chamberlain, the letters of the British Air Ministry to Supermarine to get the new fighter became almost threatening: everyone knew that the war would be there, and Chamberlain bought time at the expense of Czechoslovakia.
MODE O.T: OFF

A question, please:
Wing profiles of P-39, root and tip? Wash-out?
Thanks!

Hansie Bloeckmann said:

I beg to differ, gentleman, based on 3 factors, all British-- I have little trust or faith in a Nation who gave the world: (1) Neviile Chamberlain, who bent over backwards to Hitler in the Czech "Peace In Our Time" scenario--(2) Fat old cigar chomper Winnie Churchill, who proved his military prowess in WW1 at Gallipoli-a major FUBAR, later repeated at Dieppe, although that fiasco was Not Winnie's planning- (2) A King who didn't want the job-- Bertie Windsor was King because his older brother David Windsor passed up a Coronation for some cheap American floozie, who was twice divorced-- Not proper form, Davey-Boy-not proper form at all.

I am not saying we should have Not been involved in WW2- but only against the Japanese, Pearl Harbor nonwithstanding. If we had all our resources that went to Churchill and the ETO marshalled in the PTO--we might have defeated Japan earlier, and hopefully with less loss of American lives.

I have 2 uncles who flew in WW2- one was a Naval aviator, flew Corsair F-4U aircraft in the PTO in 1944-1945, and survived, one who few on a B-17 crew in the ETO-- bailed out on a Polesti oil field mission, and spent 13 months in a Luftwaffe run Stalag (Stockade) POW camp. He survived also.

Did we become a "World Power"-- yes, but at what a price. Then followed the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, Korea and later, Vietnam, and we, as an emerging World Power, became, somehow, the great Policeman of the World. A daunting task in the 1950's and the "Ike years", even more daunting yet today with the threat from the Mid-Eastern Muslim oriented power bloc.

Click to expand...

In 1939 we had the choice of fighting and winning, fighting and losing or forming a cosy agreement to carve up Europe which would have had the USA facing Japanese German British French and Italian forces at sea. Chamberlain did the only thing anyone could do about Czecholslovakia, bluster and re- arm what did or could the USA have done? Churchill for all his faults, by the time he became PM had experience running the navy, serving in the army and more importantly working in the ministry of munitions. That's my bit......start a new thread if you like, this is way off topic here.

buffnut453 said:

This clearly needs another thread so this will be my last post on this topic, although I'm bemused at your blaming Britain (or, at least, certain Britons) for all ills and yet not admitting to any American mistakes...and that in a post that also mentions Vietnam. The irony couldn't be more amusing.

Before I go, however, please note that it was Hitler who declared war on America, not the other way around. America didn't choose to enter the European war because Hitler brought it to America.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware that Hitler, on Dec 11th 1941, declared war on America. As we declared war on Japan on Dec 7th 1941. The question to me is, when and if would America have declared war on Germany, following the Pearl Harbor fiasco/-or, would we have waited for Herr Hitler to make the first move towards World aggression on 2 TO's??

I am Not Blaming Britain for America's involvement in either WW1 or WW2- Wilson and FDR and the Democrats allowed America to become involved- due to trade and economic policy. Wars are often fought for territory- both Japan to add to her much needed importing of needed raw materials not found in Japan, Germany to satisfy Hitler's twin policies; the myth of Aryan superiority, and the Lebensraum (living space) he wanted for the expanding Aryan population he had planned for the "1000 year Reich" program.

But Both Wilson and later, FDR, allowed Britain open trade access to her needed wartime material needs, as long as her ships crossed the Atlantic and docked in American ports and harbors. WW2 and trade with Britain and later, Russia, brought American employment back from the depths of the unemployment status from 1929 through 1939-- And, to some extent, so did our sale of oil and scrap metal to Japan, until FDR cut it off and froze Japanese held assets, in 1941.

In support of England, I will say that both in WW1 and WW2 in Europe, and in Asia in WW2, England most likely saw more of her upper class families losing their sons (Sandringham, etc.) than possibly in America, where our class system enabled the sons of the rich to either escape combat scenarios, or the draft entirely. Our current POTUS was deferred I believe 5 times from service in Vietnam, due to "bone spurs" in his feet. A previous POTUS served in the Texas ANG as a "week-end warrior pilot", possibly saving Nieman-Marcus from air attacks from "Uncle Ho's AF"-- And although his upper crusted father (Yale, Skull & Bones) did fly in combat in WW2 as a Naval aviator, when he was the first Bush POTUS, he picked a rich young draft dodger from Indiana, whose family's $ and "connections" allowed "Danny" to serve in the NG.

To the best of my knowledge, few if any of the USA's Reserve forces were called up by

Elmas said:

MODE O.T. ON
Note that the bombing of Guernica (April 26, 1937) had been a year and a few months before the Munich Conference (September 1938). The bombing of Guernica was extremely publicized and overrated in negative by the Western Powers, which pointed out the high number of deaths

View attachment 486649

Guernica, by Pablo Picasso, oil on canvas, 351x782 cm, 1937

and overvalued positively by the Axis, which were eager to show an air power that they did not actually possess in 1938.
And this were times where the people thought " the bomber always will pass".
How many Squadrons of modern fighters did exist in Great Britain in September 1938?
From September 1938, after the return homeland of Chamberlain, the letters of the British Air Ministry to Supermarine to get the new fighter became almost threatening: everyone knew that the war would be there, and Chamberlain bought time at the expense of Czechoslovakia.
MODE O.T: OFF

Click to expand...

Elmas said:

MODE O.T. ON
Note that the bombing of Guernica (April 26, 1937) had been a year and a few months before the Munich Conference (September 1938). The bombing of Guernica was extremely publicized and overrated in negative by the Western Powers, which pointed out the high number of deaths

View attachment 486649

Guernica, by Pablo Picasso, oil on canvas, 351x782 cm, 1937

and overvalued positively by the Axis, which were eager to show an air power that they did not actually possess in 1938.
And this were times where the people thought " the bomber always will pass".
How many Squadrons of modern fighters did exist in Great Britain in September 1938?
From September 1938, after the return homeland of Chamberlain, the letters of the British Air Ministry to Supermarine to get the new fighter became almost threatening: everyone knew that the war would be there, and Chamberlain bought time at the expense of Czechoslovakia.
MODE O.T: OFF

Click to expand...

buffnut453 said:

This clearly needs another thread so this will be my last post on this topic, although I'm bemused at your blaming Britain (or, at least, certain Britons) for all ills and yet not admitting to any American mistakes...and that in a post that also mentions Vietnam. The irony couldn't be more amusing.

Before I go, however, please note that it was Hitler who declared war on America, not the other way around. America didn't choose to enter the European war because Hitler brought it to America.

Click to expand...

Elmas said:

A question, please:
Wing profiles of P-39, root and tip? Wash-out?
Thanks!

Click to expand...

Root: NACA 0015, tip: NACA 23009, no washout (2 deg constant incindence).

Nobody is saying the P-39 didn't do good work, However this attempt to rewrite history is getting a bit tiresome.
P-40s also did a lot of bombing attacks with single 500lb bombs, later P-40s could and did carry three 500lb, there are photos of them with six 250lb bombs,

There was at least one instance in Italy of P-40s carrying a pair of 1000lbs, not one plane but one or more squadrons attacking one target. Granted it was only about 30-40 miles from the airfield.
While the 37mm was nice you don't need a 37mm to kill a truck. You also have to hit the truck in order to kill it. You need about 4 seconds to fire ten 37mm shells and a 300mph airplane covers over 500yds in 4 seconds, making aiming and hitting a single target with such a gun a bit of problem, spectacular when it does hit but actual number of hits?
Most trucks don't take well to even rifle caliber bullets let alone .50 cal bullets, punctured fuel tanks, punctured radiators, holes in the cooling jacket of the engine block, holes in the transmission and final drive casings, punctured tires. Multiple machine guns batteries certainly missed a lot but had a higher chance of getting some hits.

You are also taking one test of a lightly loaded P-39 and trying to extrapolate from it. Many other tests were done at full load clean.
like one for a P-51B using 67in of MAP,
"High speed and climb performances have been completed on this airplane at a take-off weight of 9205 lbs. This loading corresponds to the average P-51B combat weight with full oil, 180 gallons of fuel and specified armament and ammunition."
P-51B Performance Test
Climb to 25,500ft in 8.28 minutes.

tomo pauk said:

Root: NACA 0015, tip: NACA 23009, no washout (2 deg constant incindence).

Click to expand...

Thanks!

buffnut453 said:

There is a former B-17 crewman who frequents this forum whom, I suspect, would disagree with you.


I don't think I've ever seen a more partial perspective on WW2. America gained nothing from WW2? Really? Apart from becoming a global superpower, a role that it has maintained in the intervening 70+ since 1945.

As for "bailing out Britain", please remember that Britain had already ensured its own security in the summer of 1940. It's also worth pointing out that, had Britain not prevailed, America would have been surrounded by totalitarian regimes, with virtually the entire globe being carved up between Hitler, Stalin and Tojo. How would America have fared under those circumstances without the ability to influence world affairs and with no launching point for any liberation of Europe?

Click to expand...

We can only guess- in my mind, one of the great parts of studying World history is the "What If's?" No chance to chance the outcome, but the questions can be interesting.

Elmas said:

MODE O.T. ON
Note that the bombing of Guernica (April 26, 1937) had been a year and a few months before the Munich Conference (September 1938). The bombing of Guernica was extremely publicized and overrated in negative by the Western Powers, which pointed out the high number of deaths

View attachment 486649

Guernica, by Pablo Picasso, oil on canvas, 351x782 cm, 1937

and overvalued positively by the Axis, which were eager to show an air power that they did not actually possess in 1938.
And this were times where the people thought " the bomber always will pass".
How many Squadrons of modern fighters did exist in Great Britain in September 1938?
From September 1938, after the return homeland of Chamberlain, the letters of the British Air Ministry to Supermarine to get the new fighter became almost threatening: everyone knew that the war would be there, and Chamberlain bought time at the expense of Czechoslovakia.
MODE O.T: OFF

Click to expand...

Re-reading Hemingway's novel- "For Whom The Bell Tolls" shows the air power above the Spanish skies-and Picasso's 1937 shows the tragic results of war. One of his finer works, IMO. Not certain if Spanish artist Juan Gris was still alive and working in 1937- would have liked to have seen his "take" on this tragic event.

pbehn said:

In 1939 we had the choice of fighting and winning, fighting and losing or forming a cosy agreement to carve up Europe which would have had the USA facing Japanese German British French and Italian forces at sea. Chamberlain did the only thing anyone could do about Czecholslovakia, bluster and re- arm what did or could the USA have done? Churchill for all his faults, by the time he became PM had experience running the navy, serving in the army and more importantly working in the ministry of munitions. That's my bit......start a new thread if you like, this is way off topic here.

Click to expand...

Thanks- I agree-mea culpa- The questions I raised about how and why we were involved in WW2 belong in another thread. I'll shall wait for someone else to start such, as I am a "rookie" here, and if my comments have offended, please accept my apologies. I study World history extensively, 1900 to present date, but have little understanding of the "ruling classes" in Europe and England. Watching "Downton Abbey" does not make one an expert of the British upper classes, n'ces pas??

Hansie Bloeckmann said:

Thanks- I agree-mea culpa- The questions I raised about how and why we were involved in WW2 belong in another thread. I'll shall wait for someone else to start such, as I am a "rookie" here, and if my comments have offended, please accept my apologies.

Click to expand...

I don't think that you were involved in the ww2.
At any rate, you as a member of the board are very much allowed to start a thread.

Hansie Bloeckmann said:

Thanks- I agree-mea culpa- The questions I raised about how and why we were involved in WW2 belong in another thread. I'll shall wait for someone else to start such, as I am a "rookie" here, and if my comments have offended, please accept my apologies. I study World history extensively, 1900 to present date, but have little understanding of the "ruling classes" in Europe and England. Watching "Downton Abbey" does not make one an expert of the British upper classes, n'ces pas??

Click to expand...

I am not offended apart from by complete inaccurate nonsense and flag waving. In 1939 the British had the chain home and chain home low radar and CCC system installed and operational. We had the Spitfire and Hurricane in production with the new Castle Bromwich factory under construction, at the start of the Battle of Britain we still had enough (just) fighters to defend the UK from the LW. The designs which were to become the Halifax and Lancaster were accepted in 1937. All this was done while Chamberlain was Prime Minister. When Churchill became PM he appointed Beaverbrook (a newspaper magnate) as minister of aircraft production. This was an unusual choice, possibly one that could only be made by a Prime Minister who had worked as minister of munitions, he knew what was needed to increase production quickly. As a result of this UK fighter production was approximately twice that of Germany during the BoB. Now consider what the USA had in service in 1939 and also explain how Pearl Harbor happened in 1941 in an age of integrated radar defences?
You don't have to start a thread just find an old one on the subject and add to it, but please stop discussing "England" it is British and Commonwealth and the government is that of the U.K.

P-39 Expert said:

Just the facts, Spit XIV production was started in late 1943 and operational service was mainly from 1944. P-51B entered combat in 1944 (Dec. 1943). P-39N was in service from Dec. '42, a full year earlier.
And no, N could not climb with the Spit IX, but then nothing could. N could substantially outclimb a FW190 at all altitudes.

Click to expand...

As you said just the facts and I thank you for reminding me about the Spit XII which entered production before the P39N and service about the same time.

Hansie Bloeckmann said:

I beg to differ, gentleman, based on 2 factors, all British-- I have little trust or faith in a Nation who gave the world: (1) Neville Chamberlain, who bent over backwards to Hitler in the Czech "Peace In Our Time" scenario--

Click to expand...

True it was humiliating, but it did buy us a precious 12 months to get our preparations in hand for when war came.

(2) Churchill, who proved his military prowess in WW1 at Gallipoli-a major FUBAR, later repeated at Dieppe! .

Click to expand...

Again true to a point but he got a lot more right than he got wrong in WW2. If you want to look at mismanagement and poor leadership the USA was far from blameless. Anzio and post war, Cuba the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam spring to mind.

I am not saying we should have Not been involved in WW2- but only against the Japanese, Pearl Harbor nonwithstanding. If we had all our resources that went to Churchill and the ETO marshalled in the PTO--we might have defeated Japan earlier, and hopefully with less loss of American lives.

Click to expand...

Without the UK the USA would have had a lot of problems. It was mentioned earlier that the UK saved Curtis and Bell financially, with what would you have fought the Japanese? Also remember the technical information we gave the USA such as Radar an area where the Germans and Britain were well ahead of the world. Add to this the fact that Japan and Germany were in a pact and if the Japanese had more German technology, Japanese forces with Modern Radar well ahead of the USA would have been a nightmare.

Did we become a "World Power"-- yes. But remember, "absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

Click to expand...

Am I the only one who see's a certain amount of Irony in this

This ends my first and only posting of this nature

No Hansie, you are sadly misinformed about why the US gave its support in the ETO and became involved there.

The US entered the war in the ETO for a number of reasons. Its concern to prop up the british was one of them, but wasn't even the main reason why it became embroiled in the conflict.

The US was set on a collision course with both Japan and the European Axis because of fundamental differences on world trade.

The US above all other considerations, favoured open door policies for trade. Basically a level playing field as far as access to markets. They wanted to be able to sell their goods on an open market unfettered by trade restrictions.

This set the US on a direct path of disagreement with the tripartite powers. All of them wanted to set up spheres of influence, with restricted and closed markets, based on the principals of "most favoured nation" within those areas. Closed market systems are inherently inefficient and grossly unfair, and absolutely diametrically opposed to the US ideas of a free and open market system.

All of the axis powers in the lead up to war pursued policies to close off the markets they wanted to control. In the Pacific, the Japanese took strong steps to close the ports of entry into China, occupying territories like French Indochina and forcing the closure of the Burma Road and other measures that incensed the Americans and made war against Japan more or less inevitable.

A very similar situation arose in the ETO, though the means of achieving that closure of access to the European markets was very different.

At the beginning of the war, up until April 1940, the US as a neutral power enjoyed considerable access to the neutrals for the sale of her goods. Neutral shipping was meant to be protected if it displayed certain painted images on the hull, remained illuminated at all times and did not transmit position details when being stopped and searched. German attacks on shipping were meant to be restricted to a "declared area", which was progressively expanded and then totally abandoned altogether. By august 1940 the Germans were advising that all shipping regardless of nationality was a legitimate target, in any ocean of the world, from any nationality and with no warning given. Any nationality was fair game. At least 4 Italian flagged blockade runners were attacked and sunk (or damaged) 1941, and at least 1 german blockade runner also attacked. These were axis controlled ships, not allied. And of course these indiscriminate attacks included attacks on US controlled shipping.

This unrestricted and uncontrolled warfare did not go down well with the US. They had over 120 WWI DDs mothballed at the time, but lacked the trained manpower or the bases to use them all effectively. Conversely, the RN was offering escort protection in her transatlantic convoys not only for shipping working for the allies but also for any neutral shipping making the hazardous passage across the Atlantic. Many nations received protection for their shipping fleets including nations such as Spain, Sweden, Finland, and the Soviets. Such nations if travelling through any of the declared areas were made to submit to british contraband/quota searches (to prevent any being passed to the axis) and this did cause angst with the americans. That angst evaporated when faced with the alternative of being sunk without warning by the KM.

The bases given in exchange were far from useless to the US. From the beginning, the US needed to protect oil shipping from the Gulf of mexico and central America as well as protecting her vital interests in Panama. The bases were used as an insurance, should the germans seek to interfere with any of those interests. At the time it seemed like a wise and beneficial move to exchange 50 DDs surplus to needs that would protect US shipping anyway, and with only remote chances of getting to sea in the foreseeable future, for bases that looked like they would be needed and if needed might help defend vital US interests.

The final reason I should mention is that the US relied on British controlled shipping to keep her economy afloat in those lead up years. The British controlled 26 million tons of shipping to the US 9 million, of which nearly 2million tons was reflagged anyway and effectively controlled by the British. More importantly the Americans were even more short of tankers than the brtish were in 1939. Guess what, by various means, the two big tanker fleets of the world, the Dutch and the Norwegians both came under British control before those countries were overrun. It was the Norwegian tanker fleet that drove the british on to the otherwise futile campaign in Norway. By the British making the sacrifices they did, as juxtaposed to the abysmal behaviours of the KM in Norway, virtually every Norwegian tanker willingly came under British control. For the Dutch the decision was more circumspect. Most of its 3 million tons of tankers were passed to the NEI, but then, to receive support from the British in that TO, they began to haul fuel worldwide for the Allies and the neutrals (including the US), but only with british approval.

If the US had opted for a more strictly neutral policy, they would have risked access to markets and also risked doing real damage to their economy due to shortages of strategic imports. It was in their interests to side with the british and give them the support they needed

P-39 Expert said:

Dec. '42 to Dec '43 is one year.
Regarding the "gestation period" for a new model, the P-39N was a mature model with the main difference from prior models being a newer version of the same engine (V-1710). "Gestation" was very short, production began in December '42 and P-39Ns were serving that same month in New Guinea. "Gestation" for this model consisted of transporting them to New Guinea. Now I will admit gestation for a new fighter can take an agonizingly long time. The first P-47 Thunderbolt was built in 1941 but first combat was April 1943.

Click to expand...

Sources for squadron level deployment of P-39N in New Guinea? Specifically, the deployment of the N to SWP vs to 354, 357, 363 destined for ETO and 332nd for MTO? The latter required approximately 300 P-39Ns in summer of 1943. Which other FGs would you cite as recipients of the P-39N other than French and Russians in mid 1943? The first operational deployment for US FG that I can find is 18th FG in June-July 1943 as CAS. P-38s assume role of interceptors.

When the 15th AF was formed, basically all P-39s, all types, relegated to 5th Bomb Wing. 350th FG flying P-39Q, 332nd FG arrives with P-39Q. All P-39s in US FG's replaced with P-47s in January/February 1944 and P-39s go to French and Italian Air Force. P-40N replaces SWP P-39/P-400 in the Groups still tasked for CAS and the Recon squadrons receive P-39N until P-51B/C arrive in April-June 1944. June 1944 P-39 Productions ceases.

The 31st FG trained in P-39s but left them in US in June 1942, pilots go to UK and a/c replaced by Brit Spit V. 52nd FG trained in P-39s but leave them in US and equipped w/Spit V in UK. The 81st and 350th in UK fly P-400 and P-39D-1 destined for Russia, but move to Africa in Jan 1943 - assigned to strafing, convoy escort and recon role due to insufficient performance as fighter/interceptor in contrast to Spit V. The 81st moves to CBI and converts to P-40 in early 1944.

The P-39 Never flew an escort mission for 8th AF. The spotty occasions in the MTO when it flew escort for medium and light attack bombers were because nothing better (P-40/Spit V/P-38) were available at the time.

The combat radius for the P-39N on internal fuel was approximately 60% of the P-40K/F/M/N. The Max range of the P-39 Q with kit raising total fuel to 120 internal and 175 external (ferry tank only - not self sealing) was about 1000 miles. That is equivalent to a Mustang I with Only 170 gallons of internal fuel.

In contrast the P-51B-1 in first flight tests at 8600 pounds made 25K in 7 min, at full internal combat load of 9200 (269 gal internal fuel) pounds ~ 8min. The P-51B/C with 2x1000 pound bombs, internal fuel only at 269 gal had a Combat Radius more than P-39N clean

The P-39N with 87 gallons at 7600 pounds took ~ 10 min for 25K.

Hansie Bloeckmann said:

I beg to differ, gentleman, based on 2 factors, all British-- I have little trust or faith in a Nation who gave the world: (1) Neville Chamberlain, who bent over backwards to Hitler in the Czech "Peace In Our Time" scenario--(2) Churchill, who proved his military prowess in WW1 at Gallipoli-a major FUBAR, later repeated at Dieppe! .

I am not saying we should have Not been involved in WW2- but only against the Japanese, Pearl Harbor nonwithstanding. If we had all our resources that went to Churchill and the ETO marshalled in the PTO--we might have defeated Japan earlier, and hopefully with less loss of American lives.

I have 2 uncles who flew in WW2- one was a Naval aviator, flew Corsair F-4U aircraft in the PTO in 1944-1945, and survived, one who few on a B-17 crew in the ETO-- bailed out on a Polesti oil field mission, and spent 13 months in a Luftwaffe run Stalag (Stockade) POW camp. He survived also.

Did we become a "World Power"-- yes. But remember, "absolute power corrupts, absolutely!"

Click to expand...

Think i made a mistake coming back !
Shame really