Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Operational: A fully combat ready aircraft in a fully combat ready unit positioned in an
area capable of putting a hurt on the enemy's aircraft immediately. And, proven themselves
so by putting their aircraft in hostile air.
Thank you Darren, you are right I did ask for help of which P-47D variant was in fully combat
operational service by 25 December 1943. That was the limiting date that pbehn put on his
post. So I used that limitation. Wuzak is partly right about the P-39N's luck against the P-38J-5.
While I believe the Spitfire 14 would do just fine against the Airacobra at tree top levels, I
believe the J-5 lightning would more than have its hands full in a maneuvering contest.
We may be getting into arguments about semantics. One man's "twitchy" is another man's "highly responsive".
RTO - Eastern Front, I assume.
...
That Lend Lease aircraft site is a fantastic resource, and that article in particular is indeed a good read and it helped me understand how the Soviets did so well with the P-39. The Soviets got their P-39's in December and January of 1941/42, and spent the next 4 moths preparing them, training pilots and doing their workup. Some quotes from the article mentioned:
This is one of the key aspects of solving the mystery of why the Soviets got so much mileage out of this aircraft when nobody else could. They liked it initially and recognized it's potential, they had already had experience with Anglo-American fighters and had recognized certain problems they wanted to avoid with the P-39. So they collected all the ones they were sent in some airfield in Siberia, had test pilots fly them, did a complete workup on systematic adjustments, some already widely known like removing the wing-guns to save weight, but others were less widely understood like winterizing and working out maintenance systems in advance. For example they had to modify all Anglo-American fighters so that all fluids could be drained out every night (not just during overhauls) during the Winter, which meant adding plugs and drains on some systems not designed for it - and do it in such a way that would not damage hydraulics, coolant or oil. They did this much more carefully with the P-39's thanks to the work-up, by comparison with the P-40's and Hurricanes this was done in the field, haphazardly, often with damaging results. Another major issue was the "oil culture" and fuel requirements. Finally they trained their pilots to use the new aircraft and worked out tactics (exploiting the radios, among other things) for their optimal use.
One of the big differences between the P-39's and the P-40's and Hurricanes they had gotten earlier was that the P-39's came with spare engines and at least some spare parts. The other parts and supplies were figured out by Soviet engineers, copied as needed added to the Soviet logistics systems. Thus when P-39 engines burned out, as they quickly did in field conditions partly due to using them at high power settings, they could be replaced with new engines. This was much more of a problem with P-40's for example which initially came without any spare engines.
Once all of this was all worked out, and only then, the Soviets committed the P-39 in some numbers, and it caused something of a shock to the Germans.
Why they liked it so much
Most of this of course is well known. So we can see why the Soviets liked the P-39. The question remaining is why they did so well with it compared to say, the British, the Americans, the Free French, the Italian Co-beligerant forces who suffered from it so badly, and whoever else got stuck with it (I think Australians maybe?). This is the biggest question to me.
- It was the most similar to Soviet fighters. The P-39 was the only Anglo-American single-engined fighter with a cannon in the spinner plus nose guns. Their aerial gunnery training was mostly oriented toward nose guns and most (except I-16 pilots or those checked out on P-40's or Hurricanes) were not used to wing-guns. The P-39 was streamlined like a Soviet fighter. It was agile and climbed well. These characteristics endeared it to the Russians and marked it for the careful work-up it got.
- It was fast. Properly stripped down, the P-39 was faster than a Bf 109E at low altitude and arguably, maybe even Bf 109F. No Soviet planes could match this down low (the MiG 3 could at high altitude only but that really didn't matter in combat along the Russian Front).
- They got some new ones. Most of the P-40's and Hurricanes they had gotten to that point were already worn out battle veterans with weakened engines. But the British didn't use their P-39's very much at all before sending them on, and the Americans sent new ones.
- It had good radios. The Soviets had been unable to get enough radios into production and the ones they had suffered from very short range and ineffective transmitters, due to ineffective grounding and other problems. All the Anglo-American planes, the American in particular, had good reliable radios for both transmitting and receiving. This was a huge help for the Soviets!
- It was all -metal. Soviet planes were mostly made with substantial wooden parts, using new types of plywood which had not in all cases been fully developed and sometimes failed in flight. The P-39 had none of these problems.
- Superior build quality. All of the newer Soviet fighters - MiG-3 / La GG-3 / Yak 1 / Yak 7 etc., suffered from severe problems with build quality. Many parts which would be interchangeable on a Western fighter were unique one-off's on Soviet planes. Variations in production quality, which in many cases was being done in factories that had just been moved across the Urals and didn't even have roofs, could mean that an aircraft with an official speed of 350 mph was in reality limited to 280 or 290 mph. The early P-39 didn't have the world's best build quality (some serious defects were revealed by British testing such as landing gear doors opening up at speed etc.) but it was better than all of the newer era Soviet planes up until probably 1943.
- The altitude ceiling didn't matter - almost all of the bombing in the Russian Front zone was tactical and there was often a cloud ceiling at ~4-5,000 feet especially during the long winter. So not only did most of the fighting take place at low altitude the Germans couldn't use their superior climb and ceiling to attack from above all the time like they did so much in North Africa.
- They liked the heavy armament and heavy construction. The Soviet pilots actually liked the Oldsmobile 37mm as it allowed them 'authority' in a head-on pass with German fighters (who would veer off to avoid what they described as an "anti-aircraft caliber weapon") and the Soviets seemed to be able to get it working, although in some cases it was replaced by 20mm guns. They also felt the P-39 could survive belly landings which would destroy most other aircraft.
- Dive speed and high-G turns. One effect of the heavy construction was that the P-39 could out-dive most other Soviet planes, which had fairly low speed limits due to their partly wooden construction and typically uneven-build quality. The P-39 could dive very fast and could evade Bf 109's this way. This was key to the survival of Soviet P-39 pilots, the ability to disengage. This also meant that the P-39 could pull higher-G turns (so long as the pilot could keep it out of a Spin) than some other Soviet types.
Why the Soviets did so well with it compared to others
- The main reason is I think the big workup described in that article.on Leand Lease P-39's. In general with early war Anglo-American aircraft, success seemed to hinge on modifying the aircraft appropriately for actual use (as opposed to however they arrived from the factory) usually involving both weight saving and maintenance issues, and training on the particular fighter type. Flying a P-39 in combat right out of flight school was a recipe for death. The Soviets solved both of these problems with their extended workup of the P-39.
- The lower altitude ceiling - the tactical flight ceiling of the Russian Front battlefield really made a difference. It was a low-altitude battlefield, and due to the frequent cloud ceiling, German fighters often could not attack from above. Almost all of the bombing on both sides was dive bombing or close-support (Sturmovik) low altitude attacks. This was one of the main weaknesses of the P-39 for other Theaters but it just didn't matter nearly as much on the Russian Front.
- Range didn't matter as much on the Russian Front- I think range is the main reason the P-39s did so poorly in general in the Pacific. Altitude ceiling of course was more important there too, since the Japanese were using level-bombers that were coming in at 20-25,000 feet. But short range exacerbated that problem because short range meant less time to get up to altitude. But the Russians were already operating from forward airfields close to the front and combat was at low altitude, so range wasn't as important.
- The Russians were used to twitchy planes. I think this is one of the other main factors. Western allied pilots were afraid of the P-39, they didn't trust it, because it was somewhat unstable aircraft which could go into an unforgiving spin (the 'flat spin' and tumble are debated issues, but lets agree a spin in a P-39 could be dangerous). The Soviets had a head start on this due to the 4 month training and evaluation period they did, but they also had a lot of pilots already used to 'twitch' fighters and able to fly well in them and get kills in spite of their touchy handling. The I-16, the LaGG-3, the MiG 3, and the early Yak 1 were all known to be 'twitchy' fighters. Many Soviet pilots assigned to P-39 fighters came directly from flying these somewhat 'difficult" planes. This I suspect is one of the other crucial missing ingredients.
- The Soviets had some input into the aircraft development. Later model P-39's were adjusted according to feedback from their only happy customer, the Soviets, and the P-63 was basically built to Soviet specifications and under direct Soviet supervision.
I think ceiling and range were the two biggest performance issues preventing the P-39 from doing well in the Pacific. i suspect the 'twitchyness' and training were the major issues in the Med.
Anyway, that's my $.02
S
Also, not many kills against JU-87s. I thought they were pretty numerous on the Eastern Front. Were they depleted by this time, or was it due to their agility and their tail gunner?
Cheers,
Wes
And very valuable $.02, indeed !
Many thanks to Schweik for such detailed commentary. And - especially - for bringing attention to:
1. Massive pre-flight preparations, research and improvements. They continued with later models as well.
2. Advanced training that many pilots received. Human factor should not be underestimated.
Just a couple of small things:
- 22 ZAP and other reserve/training regiments were never based in Siberia. Siberian airfields were just transit points for AlSib route.
- Certainly "not the most similar to Soviet fighters". Actually most, if not all qualities of P-39 praised by VVS pilots were not typical to domestic production. As for nose guns orientation - interesting hypothesis, but it needs to be verified.
The most dreaded thing Italian P-39 pilots feared were the nickname the other pilots, who remained in the Stormo equipped with Macchi gave them: "the truck drivers", for the car style door of their planes...
Good question. I'd suggest both general attrition and (probably) Ju 87 tactics changes after 1941. If they were more and more used at lower altitudes then their typical opposition would be Yak and La, IMHO. P-39 did not excel very low.
One of Rudel's stories was about P-39 on his tail in long ground level chase in 1944...
As for numbers of Ju 87, if someone has enough time to count them from here or from similar source:
http://www.oocities.org/sturmvogel_66/LWJul42.html#May43
For Italians, pride is very important of course. A lot of them died in accidents in P-39's though including IIRC at least one important ace, so that is pretty tragic.
S
Operational: A fully combat ready aircraft in a fully combat ready unit positioned in an
area capable of putting a hurt on the enemy immediately. And, proven themselves
so by putting their aircraft in hostile air.
Thank you Darren, you are right I did ask for help of which P-47D variant was in fully combat
operational service by 25 December 1943. That was the limiting date that pbehn put on his
post. So I used that limitation. Wuzak is partly right about the P-39N's luck against the P-38J-5.
While I believe the Spitfire 14 would do just fine against the Airacobra at tree top levels, I
believe the J-5 lightning would more than have its hands full in a maneuvering contest.
Earlier that day, II./JG 77 had clashed with 34 P-40 Warhawks of US 57 FG and shot down four of these against one own loss. II./JG 77 claimed to have shot down five Warhawks, including two by Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert; thus, the Eastern Front veteran Reinert scored seven victories against US fighters on 13 March 1943, increasing his total victory tally to 135.)
All of this, including Reinert's feat, is a perfect illustration of the Luftwaffe Eastern Front veterans repeating what they previously had accomplished on the Eastern Front against the same kind of fighters.
However, to be fair, it should be noted that only a few days before II./JG 77's massacre on US-piloted Airacobras, other Airacobras flown by Soviet pilots of 19 GIAP managed to shoot down three of III./JG 5's Bf 109s in a single engagement (against only one own Airacobra lost). Lt. Jakob Norz's Bf 109 F-4 (WNr 13108), Lt. Gerd Grosse-Brauckmann's WNr 10183, and Fw. Ernst Schulze's WNr 10122 were all reported destroyed as a result of that combat. Without drawing any far-fetched conclusions, I can only note that AFAIK the American Airacobra pilots never managed to accomplish anything similar against Luftwaffe fighters.
In any case, shortly after it had received such a bad beating by II./JG 77, this US Airacobra unit also was withdrawn from first-line service and joined the other Airacobra unit in coastal patrols with the North-West African Air Force - where they were saved from encountering any Bf 109s or Fw 190s."
The weight alone has a negligible impact on speed. It is the drag associated with the weight that causes the speed reduction.So are we in agreement that the loaded weight of the Q model was roughly 150-200lbs more than the P-39N (extra weight of guns, ammo, and additional fairings) ? How would an increase like that affect the level speed and climb rate?
Since most P-39s sent to Russia were the N and Q versions, is it possible these were quite well sorted as far as engine and CoG issues went while the earlier versions just shouldn't have been put into service?
Great post, the proof of that particular pudding is the Mustang Mk I (P51A) bigger and heavier than the P39 but faster, it actually did do 400MPH with and Allison engine, and the P51B bigger and heavier than the Spitfire but faster at all altitudes on the same engine. Rates of climb may have been slightly lower but not seriously behind.The weight alone has a negligible impact on speed. It is the drag associated with the weight that causes the speed reduction.
For instance if you were add internal ballast with NO exterior changes the only increase in drag would be a very marginal shift in the angle of attack of the wing and the induced drag, since forces on the plane (both drag and lift) go up with the square of the speed adding a few hundred pounds to an aircraft does very little to the speed.
However, pods, protruding gun barrels, gun ports/troughs, cartridge ejection slots can cause a much bigger disruption of airflow and increased drag.
When climbing there is a bit of a double whammy. Since climb speed is relatively low, in fact it is a cross/blend between lowest speed with good controllability and the lowest drag speed ( lowest drag caused by lift and lowest drag caused by speed/shape). I am not explaining that well.
View attachment 488300
Picture worth 1000 words. Climb is done near the minimum drag speed, an increase in weight is going to cause the lift induced drag to rise at low speed in greater proportion than at high speed. This leaves less power to perform the climb with and when climbing you are lifting every pound.
Hope that makes sense?
The pilots of 601 sqdrn RAF had previously flown Hurricanes, the take off of the P-39 was much longer, so much that it couldn't be used on some RAF bases. The landing speed and I presume take off speed was much higher, the pilots manual says that you can side slip to lose height but the rate of descent means this shouldn't ne necessary. However of the planes used by 601, one crashed after take off with engine failure killing the pilot, another crashed during aerobatics killing the pilot while another had to do a wheels up landing. The actual tests by Boscombe down said it could be used as a low altitude fighter, it just happened that the pilots actually using it hated it. Personally I think Operation Barbarossa and Japanese activities in the Pacific trumped all discussions. The British were already sending planes and tanks to Russia starting June 1941, sending P39s to UK while UK was sending Hurricanes and later Spitfires to Russia makes no sense at all.I am not sure how bad things really were and how much was "hanger talk". The P-39 certainly had a higher landing speed than a P-40 but then so did a P-47. The P-39 may have been more responsive than some other fighters, more results (change of angle of aircraft)for the same movement or effort on the stick/rudder pedals.
The P-39 may parallel the B-26? Early pilots transitioning from easier to fly aircraft had trouble with it (and inexperienced instructors didn't help) while later pilots had a better training program?
Once a plane gets a bad reputation it takes a LOOOOOOONG time to live it down.
IN combat in 1942 and early 43 the P-39 was usually going to be the plane being dived down upon and seldom being the plane doing the diving upon others, which means it is at a disadvantage a larger percentage of the time.
I am not saying the P-39 was a great combat plane in the west, just that some pilot's comments have to be put in context.
Nikademus time ago posted him sum from Shore's books on war in Africa this give 522 P-40 losses vs 206 109 losses (my sum for both the books)But here are a few examples involving USAAF P-40 F/L vs. Bf 109s specifically:
23 March 1943 (USAAF 79 FG P-40F vs. JG 77 & JG 51) 2 Bf 109s lost to P-40's / 0 P40's lost
29 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG P-40L vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (4 destroyed +2 crash-landed) and 3 He 111's and 1 Ju 88 / 2 P-40's lost (1 to AA)
31 March 1943 (USAAF 33 FG P-40L vs. JG 77) 6 Bf 109 lost (3 destroyed +3 crash-landed) / 1 P-40 lost
S