Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The P-40 carried only 30 gallons of internal fuel (180 pounds) more than the P-39. Ten gallons were eaten up in the takeoff and climb to 5000' allowance. The remaining 20 gallons would get you an extra half hour at economical cruise (41gph) or 12 minutes at normal power (100gph) at 15000'. That's clean with no drop tank. Almost all missions carried drop tanks.
The P-39 normally carried a drop tank of 75-110gal where the P-40 normally carried a 50gal drop tank. Same fuel for both planes if the P-39 carried a 75gal tank (120 internal + 75gal drop = 195gal for P-39 vs 150 internal + 50 drop = 200 for P-40). Any range advantage for the P-40 was negated by the P-39 better cruising speeds.
.So let's just say that the P-40's combat ceiling was substantially lower than any enemy fighter plane it was likely to encounter. That means every combat starts with the P-40's opponent above. The opponent will simply bounce the P-40 until the P-40 is shot down. Luring the opponent down to the P-40's level takes an awfully stupid opponent. They were literally sitting ducks.
.
P39E,
In a perfect world with absolute situational awareness (SA) this might happen.
Every combat did not start with P40 opponents holding the high ground. And if they did, and you are sitting there in your 109 wanting to shoot down a P40 you would need to go down to his altitude to nail him. P40 dives to the heart of its envelope and then turns to meet the inbound 109. Simple, just takes keeping your head on a swivel and understanding both your and your opponents strengths and weaknesses.
If the 109 climbs back up then no one gets shot down it's another stalemate. I would have kept P40s in reserve and once the engagement starts scramble them to the 109s home airfield, to catch them low on gas and in the pattern.
There are more than one way to skin a cat and you have to get into a fight in order to shoot someone down.
Cheers,
Biff
From what I have read this indeed did happen. The Yak-9T were new and comparatively rare and were distributed to squadron and then section leaders, because they were usually the ones meant to do the killing while their wingmen protected them. They were also usually better pilots (based on their approved victory claims) and therefore less likely to lose the more expensive aircraft.
I could be wrong but I understood that the F had a bit more armor. Anyway increasing numbers of Fw 190s - which were considered a little more sturdy than Bf 109s- was mentioned in one book I read recently as the reason why they started adopting heavier guns. The other reason frequently mentioned (including I believe in some of the links I posted) was strafing armored vehicles which Soviet fighters apparently did a lot of .
Actually I think it was a matter of the needs of the mission and pilot choice, as just as many had 3 guns as two. The Yak-3 in fact typically had 1 x 20mm and 2 x 12.7mm.
No, I don't think that is the case. A Yak-9 is not equivalent to a Ki-27 or even a Ki-43. It's 100 mph faster than the former and 60 mph faster than the latter, lets keep that in mind before we go too far off the rails. You don't want to acknowledge it for some reason but the P-47 is the perfect example. For the Soviets it was basically useless. They didn't perceive bombers as 'mud movers' and sacrificed thousands of lives to do low altitude pinpoint strikes against enemy Tactical forces. If they thought the P-47 would have been good at that job by their standards and in the conditions they fought in, I'm sure they would have used it since they could have had them.
But the P-47 was not particularly fast at low altitude, was not agile or maneuverable at low altitude, was as big of a target as an Il-2 but not as well armored, did not climb all that well, wasn't as easy to fly for less trained pilots and required a long runway to use. It was good at high altitude but the Soviets had very little need for that capability (what little they did require was handled by Spitfire IX's in the PVO and later by high altitude Yak-9 variants). The Western concept of what made a good plane is not the only concept with any meaning. The Soviet fighters were ideal for the environment they were operating in.
Again, comparing a Yak-3 and an A6M is inaccurate. The Germans feared the Yak-3, whereas you'll find few Hellcat pilots who feared the A6M. The F6F had significant advantages over the A6M in combat speed, dive speed etc. The Yak 3 or late model Yak 9 or La 7 did not have any major disadvantages against a Fw 190 or late model Bf 109.
I don't know what your source is for the above claims but I resent the suggestion that I cherry picked anything. In fact - it's the opposite! That was the only Italian order of battle I could find in MAW last night. I have previously posted another Axis Order of Battle on this forum at least twice from earlier in 1942 which showed more MC 202 active but couldn't find it last night. The Shores books are very poorly organized for finding things and I have four of them. I'm sure, by the way, that you saw these previously because these were in threads where you were active. But I'll track them down again and post them.
Regarding the MC 202 and this narrative that the Regia Aeronautica didn't have modern planes in North Africa, I assume you just aren't that familiar with the history. Apparently you have some kind of source why don't you read a little more about it I think you will find that I am right. By mid -1942 almost all the fighter sorties flown by the Italians were with MC 202 or other modern types (Re 2001, and later MC 205). Their main problem was with fuel, they didn't fly as many sorties (or more precisely, they didn't fly sorties on as many days) as the Germans and the ones they flew were mostly with the MC 202s and SM.79 Torpedo bombers attacking shipping in the Med. Most other planes were grounded most of the time.
This sounds nice but it's not the reality according to numerous pilot anecdotes. If you tried to chase an enemy pilot for a long way by following 5,000 feet above, one thing that can and did happen is that their wingman or squadron mates notice you doing that and swoop down to get you. He may even call for help on the radio. After say a half an hour chase he may be nearing his own base. All of these things actually happened historically.
More importantly, as soon as you make any attempt to shoot at the fleeing aircraft you are going to be at the same altitude (within 300 meters or so) and therefore close to Co-E. Assuming he has any of the momentum from his dive, in a P-40K he's going to be able to turn much more sharply, will have a better roll rate, and 200 more horsepower to call on. Therefore such chases often did not end well for Luftwaffe pilots, based on numerous surviving pilot accounts which I have already transcribed & posted in other threads on this forum.
If / when I have the time I'll dig up a few of these already posted and link them since I don't want to bog down this thread with that side argument on a side argument.
Hello Schweik,
From what I have read, the fighters with the heavy cannon were a bit heavier (obviously), had relatively little ammunition and also were less agile. The combination probably needed a bit more piloting skill as did the coping with recoil from the gun's recoil as shown in testing the Yak-9TK.
The FW 190 didn't vary all that much for armor until you got to the Sturmbock aircraft.
...
1 MG and 1 20 m cannon seems to be pretty light firepower for a strafer aircraft.
The point in picking the Ki-27 and Ki-43 wasn't because of performance. It was to illustrate different fighting styles. If you try to fight with a P-47 the same way as you would a (snip)
It really is a matter of knowing the aircraft and flying it to the aircraft's advantages.
The Soviet philosophy of fighters just didn't agree with how the Thunderbolt needed to be flown.
If you actually check out the performance specs, you will find that the typical P-47D series is faster at Sea Level than just about every version of Yak fighter that didn't have a M-107 engine installed.
I am normally interested in the equipment and don't really pay much attention to your quotes from the MAW unless they have some relevance to the technology. This is a rare case where you picked an aircraft (the Folgore and Veltro) that I had to do some general research on a few years back.
Cherry picking data? Must be a coincidence regarding the date.
Actually I am using several sources and they all seem to agree so they must all be wrong.
The P-40K is a low altitude hotrod. It is a bottom-feeder. (snip)
You can use team tactics to address its shortcomings. You can contrive any situation you want to try to demonstrate why it isn't important and bring in as many anecdotes as you want, but that doesn't really change the physics and mechanical limitations.
Threads always seem to go off topic around here. This is no exception.
- Ivan.
Just to quibble, all P-39s carried 120gal internal except the later N models and the earlier Q models. Kits were available to restore the full 120gal in the field if needed. Same wing, same internal capacity on all P-39s. Reductions were normally removal of the outer two tanks in each wing.
Regarding the P-40, biggest problem was rate of climb/combat ceiling defined as that altitude where the P-40 would still climb at at least 1000 feet per minute. The P-40E's combat ceiling was about 17000' clean. With the ubiquitous drop tank that fell to a little over 15000'. Now any plane can certainly climb over their combat ceiling, but it was a long and laborious process with rate of climb declining with every foot climbed. Not conducive to combat at all.
So let's just say that the P-40's combat ceiling was substantially lower than any enemy fighter plane it was likely to encounter. That means every combat starts with the P-40's opponent above. The opponent will simply bounce the P-40 until the P-40 is shot down. Luring the opponent down to the P-40's level takes an awfully stupid opponent. They were literally sitting ducks.
The P-40N with the higher rated 9.6 geared engine had much better combat ceiling, around 23000' clean and 20000' with drop tank per wwiiaircraftperformance.org. But at 23000' the N's top speed was less than 320mph clean. Great plane, just too darn heavy at around 8400# clean to be competitive.
Most P-39's carried 87 Gallons.
Largest the P-39 ever carried was 120 gallons.
Various models had 100, 110, then 120 in all in the Q series
The lowest the P-40 carried in the F/L models was 120 gallons.
Most P-40's carried 157 gallons making them more tractable with an external Fuel Tank.
Range was enough to keep the P-40 relevant hitting the Axis/Japan Targets.
The Allies flew out to hit them.
By the time the P-40s got to their targets they were a good bit lighter.
It never had the range of the P40 for escort. That is why you read 10 times more combat stories about the P40 than the P39. P40 was used more in every theater as an offensive combat plane. Same issue with the P47 and Spit which had the same pathetic range issues.
No doubt they were a bit harder to fly, to use the big gun properly especially in air to air combat also took skill. From what I read though, of all those big gun installations, the one on the Yak-9T was probably the least problematic. And at the same time they were a bit more expensive, rarer and would also be given to more experienced pilots for that reason as well.
But I do also see your point about culture- that is true too. I would argue that the Japanese started WW2 very strong but declined gradually because they were a little bit more resistant to change in their cultural preferences (down to crazy things like pilots not wearing parachutes), while the Soviets who started out incredibly inefficient and ponderous gradually got better and were a bit more pragmatic, and by the end of the war were much more oriented toward the expedient and effective.
Well that explains why your positions on some of these things never evolve lol. At least you are honest. To me I think you can't really assess a military aircraft without knowing the operational history. Relying on pure math is like relying on philosophy to understand life without ever going outside. But trust me you aren't the only one that's why I don't spend a lot of time transcribing stuff any more. Not highly valued...
We are talking about slightly different time periods, in early 1942 there were still some MC 200 and G.50bis in the game, but by mid-1942 they were basically parked.
Well, this ties in with the Yak and La 5 etc. discussion. I don't think a low altitude plane is a 'bottom' feeder, I don't think only one kind of fighter is effective, in fact the lesson of WW2 is that very different planes were suitable for every Theater or every battlefield. The P-47 is a good example. The Bf 109 would have sucked in the Pacific due to range.
Using the number of stories about one plane vs another is a pretty poor way of evaluating an aircraft.
By Dec 1942 they had built 6883 P-40s compared to 2871 P-39s (an only 1900 F4Fs) of course there were more stories about the P-40, it was doing more of the work in the first year to two years of the war simply due to numbers available.
I do think you really need to look at the manuals. The P-47 may not have had the range needed for escorting bombers in the ETO but it had a very similar range to the P-40 at similar speeds and altitudes. Where the idea that it was short ranged comes from I have no idea. Nobodies fighter planes (except the Japanese) had long range in 1941-42.
A P-47 has double the range of a Spitfire (both without tanks) at similar speeds and altitudes.
The Trouble the P-47 had was that the escort mission in the ETO called for a long hard climb and a high speed cruise, both of which cut into the range/radius but then any other plane would have had it's range/radius reduced trying to fly the same mission.
As an exercise I just calculated the range for a P-40E taking off with a 52 gallon drop tank and cruising at 297mph true at 15,000ft as 567 miles (after using 38 US gallons to warm up-take-off and climb to 15,000ft, I also figured the P-40 as having 100% of it's internal fuel available when the tank was dropped and I did not count the drag of the tank in the first part of the flight. it doesn't get much more favorable than that.
The P-47 on 305 gallons of internal fuel and no drop tank when cruising at 299mph at 15,000ft would have a range of 574 miles after using 60 US gallon to warm up-take-off and climb to 15,000ft.
I am not seeing the huge advantage in range for the P-40.
These are calculated ranges and make no allowances for combat or reserves (or even landing, planes just run out of fuel on the last mile or two of flight and have to glide down
But I can meet you half way. For example you can look at the well documented careers of some of the top P-39 Aces, whose successes are often given an eye roll because "Commies!" or "Slavs!" or some such. Alexander Pokryshkin was, I believe (I could be wrong if so correct me) the top scoring Soviet P-39 Ace (and therefore the top scoring P-39 ace period) with 54 or 59 victories depending on whose count you believe, of which ~45 were with the Airacobra. Many of his victory claims have been carefully examined. Among other things he seems to have shot down and killed numerous experte such as Uffz. Hans Ellendt, Lt HGelmut Haberda and others.
In Black Cross / Red Star Volume 2, Bergstrom notes that the Soviets claimed 3,012 German aircraft shot down in aerial combat in the first half of 1942. Actual German losses are listed there as 1046 in the air and another 124 on the ground. It is from this figure that I get the early Soviet claim rate as roughly 3-1 overall. This is on page 210. While it's true 3-1 is a fairly high rate, it is not the astronomical level that seems to so often be assumed. Even, for example if we assumed some of the Soviet P-39 units actually overclaimed at that rate most of them would still have had positive kill / loss ratios. But my contention is indeed that the Soviet overclaiming rate improved substantially in 1943 due to changes in policy, and then again 1944 largely due to gun cameras.
It's worth noting here that as 'losses', Bergstrom only counts aircraft listed as destroyed, MIA, or with at least 60% damage. That is a very tight net, I personally would count any aircraft that made a forced landing caused by gun damage as a victory since it went down due to enemy action. But for sake of argument I am willing to use his numbers. If a fighter crash-lands due to a single bullet in the radiator and is two days later given a new propeller and the radiator is patched and refilled and it's put back into action, it may not mean a major setback for the enemy but from the point of view of the pilot making the claim that he (or in the Soviet case sometimes she) shot down an enemy aircraft, he (or she) is basically correct. That plane was no longer able to bomb troops or attack friendly bombers on that particular mission as the result of being hit. Attrition is a separate (though still of course relevant) issue from victories / losses.
I just checked volume 3 of Black Cross Red Star which covers the chaotic battle of Stalingrad, and the Soviet overclaim rate (for the second half of 1942) actually went up a little to 4.5-1, the German rate also rose slightly from 1.5-1 to roughly 2-1. I have Vol IV but currently not in my grasp, will post when I get my hands on it.
If you look at their various military industries, they tried to progress multiple competing designs in just about EVERYTHING. It seems like they had design staff to spare in almost every imaginable field.... except Aero engines.
As for running out of fuel...and gliding back...that was a Spitfire feature...!
This is both not quite true and yet true.
There were 3-4 different major engine design bureaus in Russia. Each was trying to manage multiple programs at the same time. The Bureau that handled the Ash-82 engine for instance was also working an an 18 cylinder engine but was not successful until after the war with the engine that powered the TU-4. It was about the only thing not directly copied from the B-29 and yet, since the Soviets had licenced the R-1820 in the 1930s and developed through a number of models and then tried to make 3 different two row versions before the engine in the TU-4 (4th design) there is not a whole lot of superficial difference between the R-3350 and the russian engine/s.
Few, if any, other countries had more than 3 major companies designing aircraft engines, The US had 3, England had 3 (if you can count Napier) and the Germans had 3.
The big problem the soviets had was not enough engineers and draftsmen as opposed to "idea" men. The Russians are just as inventive as anybody else, but you need the lower levels of engineers, draftsmen and skilled prototype makers to turn the "ideas" in reality. You also need the supporting industry/infrastructure.
Thanks Shortround6,
I actually knew there were a bunch of different engine projects going though I didn't go back to find the detail. This was really intended more as a bit of humor as was letting the Germans sort out the design variations.
As I see it, the Soviets showed an incredible amount of flexibility in adjusting their production lines WITHOUT loss of quantity production.
Note that with the IL-2 and an additional crew member added, they managed to address the CoG shift pretty easily with new outer wing panels.
This is why I have suggested several times that the outer wing panels of the Airacobra should have been redesigned but perhaps not quite as radically as in the P-39E.
With the Yak fighters, Wings get adjusted in location and size, Oil coolers get moved around, cockpits get moved around as needed to suit whatever particular project is going on. The basically sound Yak-1 design evolved into so many different lines that it is amazing to see.
You need a bomber? How about we put a bomb bay behind the cockpit of a heavy Yak fighter?
One has to wonder what might have happened if the Soviets had been manufacturing the Airacobra themselves? How quickly could they have addressed its shortcomings for CoG and lack of fuel (if they had needed extra fuel)? If they had the auxiliary supercharger, a stretch of the fuselage would gotten them the extra room needed.
- Ivan.