Sure, but that's not what's being argued.
"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sure, but that's not what's being argued.
Huh?
Most of that 700 lbs was carrying fuel.
P39 never had the range of a P40..like the Spitfire..
Russia used the P40 for escorting Bombers because of that longer range capability.
Hello Schweik,
This is from one of the links you posted.
Bell P-39 Airacobra in Soviet Service
YOUR comment earlier was that it was issued typically to squadron commanders. This would be an interesting sight for the Squadron commander to go tank busting while everyone else provides cover???
The FW 190 fighter bomber variants weren't significantly sturdier than the fighter variants in any case.
The evidence is not supporting your argument.
If La-5FN mounts two cannon and then goes to three when a lighter variant becomes available, is that an indication that armament needed some improvement? If not, why not substitute the B-20 for ShVAK one for one and still end up with a two gun fighter but with less weight?
If the typical Yak fighter carried two synchro MG and a cannon and later deleted a MG , do you suppose it was because opposition started using aircraft that were easier to kill or simply they didn't have the room?
Regarding "nearly identical" Me 109F, we will get into that later....
FWIW, a P-47 actually worked pretty well as a mud mover by itself and wasn't that bad even at low altitude IF the correct tactics were used.
The problem was that it really didn't match the Soviet philosophy for fighters and their tactics.
This is similar to having an early war Japanese pilot trained on a Ki 27 or Ki 43 evaluate the Thunderbolt. It doesn't suit his fighting style but that doesn't mean it isn't the better fighter.
Even at the end of the war, a well flown A6M5 COULD give a F6F a pretty good fight. The problem is that they didn't have the pilot quality and didn't have the numbers. Are you saying that if the Japanese like the Russians had the huge superiority of numbers, they should continue to use inferior aircraft when they CAN shoot down the enemy???
The straight line performance was similar. That doesn't mean they were equal. Engine power also has a pretty big influence as I have already commented on. Also, the performance figures you have been quoting for C.202 are WITHOUT the wing guns according to the loaded weights as stated in "Ali d'Italia 02". Adding about 140 KG probably won't help the numbers much.
As for armament, if you count weight of fire, then the typical Folgore is already behind a Me 109F with a MG 151 HMG. Weight of fire isn't really the whole story though. It helps to have the ballistics to be able to go through structure and armor instead of just chipping paint. On that count, the 15 mm gun is quite a bit more powerful than the two Breda 12.7 mm. There were also the 2 x 7.92 mm MG which were on the 109 while the wing mounted 7.7 mm MG were not even factory installed in a good portion of the C.202 and usually removed in the field.
As soon as the 20 mm cannon replaced the 15 mm MG, the power levels are vastly different.
The numbers I gave were for sorties in North Africa where the actual fighting was.
How many of these Macchi C.202 units were actually in action and how many were working up in Italy?
When an aircraft only accounts for 30% of all fighter sorties, it ISN'T the one that is being used the most.
You also picked the absolute peak of numbers for the C.202 because 30 were delivered to North Africa at the end of October.
The solution as I mentioned earlier is to follow the P-40 in direction but don't go down to the same altitude. Keep about a 5000 foot altitude advantage. That will keep your speed higher and if you were both coming down from 20,000 feet, then pursue in a shallow dive. At low altitude the P-40 won't be able to carry all the speed it gained for the altitude it lost, so he has a choice of converting that speed back to altitude at which point nothing is different from the initial fight or he bleeds it all off at low altitude.
If he tries to go as fast as possible at low altitude, then you are completely safe but in for a tail chase.
This would be the smart choice for him.
If he turns, he bleeds off speed and loses the ability to attack in a zoom climb and setting up an attack should be no problem with the altitude advantage.
If he loses too much initial speed, the only way to gain it back is to go straight and level and without altitude, there is no more ability to dive to gain speed. If he flies straight and level, he becomes a pretty easy target.
Reality is probably not going to be quite that simple, but the low-altitude hotrod does not have the advantage here unless you fight his fight.
Remember, there is always the possibility that you just ran into Swede Vejtasa and he will drill your bird full of holes in a vertical climb right before he stalls out and spins.
- Ivan.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
A general note about guns.
High velocity guns were easier to hit with as there is less time between the bullet leaving the barrel and reaching the target. At 6 O'clock (or 12 O'clock) this is less important but the bigger the deflection angle the more important this becomes.
This aspect of velocity may actually be more important than the improved hitting power of the high velocity bullet?
2nd note.
The Italian 12,7mm HE ammo contained 0.8 grams of Penthrite wax and the German 15mm MG 151 HE ammo contained 2.8 grams of Penthrite wax.
20mm shells (German mine shell excluded) held 3.7 grams to 11.3 grams of HE/incendiary material for the more common guns. The German mine shell held 20 grams (mostly)
Ammo belts (or magazines) were mixed.
High velocity guns were easier to hit with as there is less time between the bullet leaving the barrel and reaching the target. At 6 O'clock (or 12 O'clock) this is less important but the bigger the deflection angle the more important this becomes.
This aspect of velocity may actually be more important than the improved hitting power of the high velocity bullet?
2nd note.
The Italian 12,7mm HE ammo contained 0.8 grams of Penthrite wax and the German 15mm MG 151 HE ammo contained 2.8 grams of Penthrite wax.
20mm shells (German mine shell excluded) held 3.7 grams to 11.3 grams of HE/incendiary material for the more common guns. The German mine shell held 20 grams (mostly)
Ammo belts (or magazines) were mixed.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
P-39 and P-40 range and endurance was about the same.
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.
Regarding engine life in Soviet service, the reason the Soviets burned up their ingines so quickly is they ran them wide open for the entire mission. Yep, combat power (3000rpm) from takeoff to landing. Early Allisons had a 5 minute limit that was later increased to 15 minutes at combat power, so you can imagine the abuse that engine is taking over a one hour mission. As Goludnikov said "Do you want long engine life or do you want to fight the Germans?"
Last edited:
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Sure it is. Originaly Scwiek posted that The Luftwaffe overclaimed also in response to an assertion that that the p39 was really not that effective in Russian hands as it appeared because of overclaiming. Don't think I need to re- hash why if your going to ding one planes effectiveness for overclaiming you have to do it for all and then the asertion about the one plane being less effective is mute unless there is good evidence that one side overclaimed substantially more than the other as efficacy can only be done in a comparative maner as in war aircraft do not oparate in a vacuum..... .i guess I did just re- hash it........Oh well
Last edited:
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
On this one my bad. I thought you were using the 19 to 1 of the F6f as a multiple for what if the Japanese pilots claimed this ratio. Should have read it more carefully.
However,even so I'm sure your correct that Japanese pilots did claim more than 270 Hellcats but this doesn't mean, to me least it would be valid to say the A6m was not effective because it's pilots overclaimed or ditto for the F6f or any other plane for that matter.
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 .
It does, we just see the same evidence differently.
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.
Apparently you don't take my word for it so I'll dig up some quotes from actual combat pilots who either flew it or faced it when their life was on the line.
All the units / aircraft I listed were in North Africa or in nearby Islands and all were engaged with the DAF and USAAF.
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.
No, I don't have a breakdown of victories by type for the whole war like we do with American fighters. Nor total losses by type.
Nor did I ever claim to do. If anyone has it I would love to see it posted.
However, as I have previously pointed out to you and posted some data from on this forum, publications are now emerging which compare claims on both sides to actual losses. Black Cross Red Star is probably the single most comprehensive source for the Russian front but it's not the only one. Books like this give you snapshots on particular battles and campaigns. So you can see (and count) actual claims vs. losses on a given day or sometimes for an entire operation across several weeks or months. Black Cross Red Star also lists the total claims and losses by year in the appendix for certain years. It is enough to deduce a pattern. There was far more overclaiming in the first year of the war than later for example. Also overclaiming while real and constant, was never at the astronomical levels claimed in years gone by.
However I never claimed anything I said about overclaiming rates to be definitive or anything more than an estimate.
If you have data contradicting my estimates please post them.
Sure it is. Originaly Scwiek posted that The Luftwaffe overclaimed also in response to an assertion that that the p39 was really not that effective in Russian hands as it appeared because of overclaiming. Don't think I need to re- hash why if your going to ding one planes effectiveness for overclaiming you have to do it for all and then the asertion about the one plane being less effective is mute unless there is good evidence that one side overclaimed substantially more than the other as efficacy can only be done in a comparative many as in war aircraft do not oparate in a vacuum..... .i guess I did just re- hash it........Oh well
No Michael, that is not what it is about; back to Hellcat analogy, because I may have made a hash of explaining it.
It doesn't matter whether the Japanese pilots claimed to have shotdown 500 or 1000 or 2000 Hellcats, because the USN reported losing 270 to enemy aircraft and that is what the Hellcats combat is record based on.
Back to the Soviets and the P-39:
It doesn't matter whether the German pilots claimed to have shotdown 500 or 1000 or 2000 P-39's, because the Soviets knew how many they lost, and that is what the P-39's combat record in Soviet service is based on, so from the Soviet viewpoint XXXX enemy aircraft claimed for YYY P-39's lost to enemy aircraft.
However, know one seems to know what to put in place of the X or Y so it is not as easy to evaluate the P-39 as the Hellcat; but in both cases overclaiming has to be taken in to account.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
No you didn't make a hash of explaining it. I made a hash of reading it
That being said, what it's about is at this point is subject to some individual perception and thread drift.
Going back to the beginning of this" segment" if I may one more time then I'm walking away from this. One can't say that a plane is ineffective because it's pilots overclaimed because that is universal.
Yes the degrees of overclaiming may be different in some instances( although over time they seem to be generally in a balpark for everyone) and if they are substantially different then it would be incumbent on the asserter of lesser efacacy of a type due to overclaiming to list those rates of actual losses in comparison to claims and there differance from their oposition. Then the assertion that a type was not as effective as it would appear would be valid. You can't just say" well the pilots of that type overclaimed therefore that plane is not nearly effective as the other party( in this case Schweik) has asserted. imho..............I think I feel a headache comming on.
Last edited:
This isn't the one I was looking for but Axis Order of Battle in June 1943 (just before the invasion of Sicily) included. This is from MAW IV pages 158-159.
Germans
Bf 109 - 165 (mostly G-2 and G-4 with some F-4)
Bf 109 - 7 (recon units)
Fw 190 - 54 (these were jabo units)
Fw 190 - 60 (these were attack 'schlacht') units, stationed in Sardinia)
Me 110 - 44 ('zerstorer' units)
Total 165 front line fighters, plus another 125 assigned to fighter bomber, attack or recon
Italians
Bf 109 - 6 (all G model, another 40 unservicable)
MC 205 - 11 (another 20 unserviceable)
Re 2005 - 10
MC 202 - 32 (another 80 or so unserviceable)
MC 200 - (4 all unserviceable)
Dewoitine D.520 - 4 (9 unserviceable)
CR 42 - 17 (used as fighter bombers)
All of the above were in Sicily by the time of operation Husky unless otherwise stated
In reserve in Italy they also had another 13 MC 200
Total 59 front line fighters, 8 second line fighters, 17 fighter bombers, with 13 more second-line fighters (MC 200) in reserve in Italy.
Altogether for the Axis 224 front line fighters, plus the 114 Fw 190s which are no slouch, and 61 obsolescent fighters.
Against this the US had 100 Spitfires, 182 P-38s (three fighter groups plus recon), and 266 P-40F/L s, plus 120 P-51 dive bombers or recon planes, 116 P-39s, and 48 Beaufighters. (this is from pages 156-157 in the same book.) So roughly double the number of fighters. Plus the RAF was involved.
Germans
Bf 109 - 165 (mostly G-2 and G-4 with some F-4)
Bf 109 - 7 (recon units)
Fw 190 - 54 (these were jabo units)
Fw 190 - 60 (these were attack 'schlacht') units, stationed in Sardinia)
Me 110 - 44 ('zerstorer' units)
Total 165 front line fighters, plus another 125 assigned to fighter bomber, attack or recon
Italians
Bf 109 - 6 (all G model, another 40 unservicable)
MC 205 - 11 (another 20 unserviceable)
Re 2005 - 10
MC 202 - 32 (another 80 or so unserviceable)
MC 200 - (4 all unserviceable)
Dewoitine D.520 - 4 (9 unserviceable)
CR 42 - 17 (used as fighter bombers)
All of the above were in Sicily by the time of operation Husky unless otherwise stated
In reserve in Italy they also had another 13 MC 200
Total 59 front line fighters, 8 second line fighters, 17 fighter bombers, with 13 more second-line fighters (MC 200) in reserve in Italy.
Altogether for the Axis 224 front line fighters, plus the 114 Fw 190s which are no slouch, and 61 obsolescent fighters.
Against this the US had 100 Spitfires, 182 P-38s (three fighter groups plus recon), and 266 P-40F/L s, plus 120 P-51 dive bombers or recon planes, 116 P-39s, and 48 Beaufighters. (this is from pages 156-157 in the same book.) So roughly double the number of fighters. Plus the RAF was involved.
Still, the estimates you posted earlier
are quite favourable; 2-1 is not bad and 1.5-1 is quite good, by WWII standards. So if you would post a link to the data you have posted earlier, that would be helpful and interesting.
Too bad it didn't have the extra several feet of fuselage space to accommodate the turbo and intercooler.
and a C.G. conveniently placed...
No you didn't make a hash of explaining it. I made a hash of reading it
That being said, what it's about is at this point is subject to some individual perception and thread drift.
Going back to the beginning of this" segment" if I may one more time then I'm walking away from this. One can't say that a plane is ineffective because it's pilots overclaimed because that is universal.
Yes the degrees of overclaiming may be different in some instances( although over time they seem to be generally in a balpark for everyone) and if they are substantially different then it would be incumbent on the asserter of lesser efacacy of a type due to overclaiming to list those rates of actual losses in comparison to claims and there differance from their oposition. Then the assertion that a type was not as effective as it would appear would be valid. You can't just say" well the pilots of that type overclaimed therefore that plane is not nearly effective as the other party( in this case Schweik) has asserted..............I think I feel a headache comming on.
I am not saying it was ineffective, I am saying that it's record may not be quite as spectacular as it's purported to be, as a consequence of overclaiming.......if you have aspirins would you mind PM'ing me one?
Well, I don't know how much time I want to spend hunting a bunch of books & taking them down from the shelf, pouring over them to find specific incidents relevant to the conversation, transcribing them here and posting, only to be told it doesn't count for some reason (this has been the pattern for me on here in the past).
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.
One one famous occasion on Sept 21 1943, right over the front lines and in view of numerous journalists and high ranking officers who were present, Pokryshkin (who was angry upon learning his mechanics family had been killed by the SS) shot down three Ju 88s in a single pass. All three wrecks landed on the battlefield and were later recovered. He was only credited with 2 of the 3 because one was determined to have gone down due to the explosion of the second one. Late that day he claimed two Ju 87s (which were confirmed in Axis records as Ju87D-5s of 6./StG-1)*. So that is an overclaiming rate of 5 for 4 actual victories, or 1.2-1 for that pilot on that day.
Going through his victories and those of the other top scoring P-39 aces, it seems like many of them were similarly plausible based on Axis losses.
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.
* source is listed as "LW Loss Report (microfilm roll #11)-Vol. 21 "
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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.
P-39 Expert
Non-Expert
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.
