The P-39 a Zero Killer???

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is the cover sheet with the earlier date. Note the original loaded weight of the P-40E could be around 8,300 pounds. so the weight saving was substantial. I thought deletion of any of the 4 .30s of the P-39 would be unlikely and replacing the 37mm with a 20mm, if that was the original configuration wouldn't buy all that much weight saving. Dunno, just spit-balled it.
 

Attachments

  • P-40E_Wt Reduct_P40E-1.jpg
    56.9 KB · Views: 100
A Zero killer? Hardly, unless the Japanese pilot in a fit of laughter lost control of his aircraft and crashed. Pacific P-39/P400s weren't even effective against Japanese bombers. The wartime diary of Cactus Air Force pilot CPT Robert Ferguson, which became "Island of Fire" and Martin Caidin's "The Rugged, Ragged Warriors" record the demerits of Pacific Aircobras in great detail.

There was more to the Gen Arnold story. After suffering severe losses and extremely poor conditions on the ground, while attempting to fight with an aircraft completely unsuitable for air-to-air combat, the Army commander of the Cactus Air Force was summoned to Espiritu Santo. CPT Dale Brannon met the extremely angry Arnold who demanded to know why the Army fighters on Guadalcanal were not scoring as many kills as the Navy Wildcats, and were not even scoring as many kills as were being claimed by other P-39 units in the theater of operations. When Brannon started to explain the P-400 wasn't even as good as a "real" P-39, Arnold cut him off, calling his whole unit "nothing but a bunch of cowards!" Hyped up by wild unit kill claims, MacArthur's BS and fictional HQ 13th AF staff reports, Arnold refused to believe Army pilots were attempting to fight the Japanese with inferior aircraft.

For all of its faults as an interceptor or air superiority fighter, the P-39/P-400 excelled in the ground attack role. Three P-400s saved the day, and possibly the whole Guadalcanal Operation, on 14 September 1942 at Bloody Ridge.

http://67tfs.org/Guadalcanal.html

Wings at War Series, No. 3: Pacific Counterblow; Chapter 3
 
Not necessarily disagreeing with you but take anything by Caidin with a grain of salt, he's been known to stretch the truth on more than one occasion.
 
As you will note, that list is supposed to be air-to-air victories only, and the totals disagree with Ray Wagner and a few others I have come across, but thank you for the link!

Now I have some comparisons I can think about between sources ... but I notice that Mr. Jackson doesn't give his sources. He might in the small print somewhere and I'll look for them myself at leisure.
 
Not necessarily disagreeing with you but take anything by Caidin with a grain of salt, he's been known to stretch the truth on more than one occasion.
Click to expand...

Understand. That's why I referenced Ferguson's book. It's a first-hand account by someone who was forced to face Zeros while saddled in an Aircobra. Nearly the whole book is an account of Aircobra vs. Zero, while it's just a chapter in Caidin's book...which seems to just restate what is in Ferguson's book. The Arnold story was in "Island of Fire," and wasn't known to Ferguson until after the war was over. Brannon was close lipped after being reamed by Arnold, not wanting to destroy unit morale completely, and he was posted away shortly after it occurred to take over a new (real Zero killing) P-38 squadron.
 
Last edited:
BobR said:
Here is a page that lists air to kills by type and theater.

Warbirds and Airshows- WWII US Aircraft Victories

Whether one believes it or does not, it was written by person with more info than this forum has.
Click to expand...

This forum's resources may run deeper than you realize.
Looking at Jackson's victories page he cites near the top the instance of "Ensign John Leppla, a SBD Scout Bomber Pilot, was credited with 7 kills along with his gunner, which was more than any of the fighter pilots had at the time on the USS Lexington."

Those are clearly claims vs confirmed victories. The number of VT (KATES) in the attacking force was 18. Leppla only claims engaging Kates. The Sho and Zui recovered 10 of these with 1 ditching at home plate. That's 11 total that returned to their carriers. leaving only the 7 claimed by Leppla. However others made claims as well including a confirmed Kate to VF-2's Ed Sellstrom. Only three VT were confirmed as destroyed in that attack, according to John Lundstrum (First Team) who used sources from both sides.

Leppla who was KIA at Santa Cruz is credited with a total of 5 career victories. with one earned on the day he was shot down October 26, 1942.

Conclusion: Jackson is tabulating claims not victories.
 
Last edited:
My bad.. Further reading showed Leppla apparently fought A6M's as well but made no claims.. All told, the USN VB VS squadrons claimed 6 VF, 1 VB and 10 VT. Lundstrom could only confirm 1 VB and 3 VT. USN VF claimed 10 VF, 4 VB and 1 VT but only 3 IJN VB and 1 VT could be confirmed. During retirement USN VF scored on another Kate returning to its carrier. Total confirmed and accounted for is 16 VT leaving but two unaccounted for. Leppla was apparently given credit for 4 VT at Coral Sea and the one VF at Santa Cruz.
 

Yet that is what the Soviet's did and had great success in the air to air role.
It is weird to me that US Pilots, known for not adhering to discipline or orders they didn't like, couldn't or wouldn't lighten their P-39's; while the Red Pilots, under one of the most ridged and brutal of governments, could modify their aircraft.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
Not necessarily disagreeing with you but take anything by Caidin with a grain of salt, he's been known to stretch the truth on more than one occasion.
Click to expand...

Entirely agree with you, Joe. I still have my copy of "Ragged, Rugged Warriors" which I purchased as a kid in Canada. That book first got me interested in the AVG but, over time, I've come to realize how many inaccuracies have been included in that book. I keep it for nostalgia, not as a source of accurate info about the early air war in the Far East.
 

Actually, I'd argue that the situation with regards to individual solider discipline was the reverse of this.

Despite the strong national emphasis on individual/personal freedom, the US military training and operational philiosphy was very much team oriented, with a command structure than was slightly more top heavy than the Soviet WW2 organisation.

The individual US soldier had more scope for initiative, but he was probably also more disciplined than his Soviet counterpart, because the necessity of team-work and unit cohesion had been drilled into him in training. The US also had better basic command/control of its troops - most notable in air combat with radios - ensuring that commands could be understood and followed.

Despite the desotic and totalitarian nature of the Soviet regieme and the threats of punishment for transgressing rigid or even nonsensical orders, the average Soviet solider had notably less C&C and supervision over him in battle. With the command structure being so light (fewer NCOs and low-level commissioned officers), the Soviet soldier was probably required to act with just as much or more initiative than his US counterpart, despite ostensibly belonging to a more rigid military organisation.

While the independent/solo hero ignoring orders/showing personal initiative to win is enshrined in US WW2 folklore, I feel it was the team effort that the US excelled at in the war as much as any combatant in the period.
 
As for the 37-mm cannon, interestingly enough a good number of the first P-39s used in combat by the USAAF were actually armed with a 20-mm cannon, as the P-400s used by the USAAF and the P-39D-1s amounted to a bit more than 450 aircraft (EDIT : After a more thorough check, the number of which that fought in the Pacific is difficult to accurately assess. It was significant, but much probably around 200 at best rather 450, as many aircraft were used either for training or in North Africa).
 
Last edited:

I don't think you'll find that Soviet Pilots (more correct Soviet mechanics performing this for the pilots) modified their aircraft without some kind of approval first.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
I don't think you'll find that Soviet Pilots (more correct Soviet mechanics performing this for the pilots) modified their aircraft without some kind of approval first.
Click to expand...

OK, then explain why they, and again under their dictator, could be allowed to do this and not our own Pilots and Crews under a "free" government?
If they were free and this was a matter of survival why couldn't they "shoot first and explain later"?
 
muscogeemike said:
OK, then explain why they, and again under their dictator, could be allowed to do this and not our own Pilots and Crews under a "free" government?
If they were free and this was a matter of survival why couldn't they "shoot first and explain later"?
Click to expand...

You're looking at this in a political light rather than the way an air arm is to operate. No one is saying they couldn't modify their aircraft, what is being said is PRIOR to any modification, a higher authority, usually an engineer, will validate, concur or disapprove a modification. You just don't go removing production items from aircraft; you have weight and balance as well as structural considerations to deal with. Mechanics (and especially pilots) do not come up with repair or modification schemes; that is the job of an engineer, the mechanic basically follows what the engineer tells him to do, this is commonly known as "approved data." Think of the engineer as preparing a recipe, think of the mechanic as a cook. That's not to say a mechainc or pilot may have an idea that an engineer could expand on.

In the end, this has nothing to do with governments or Commies; it has everything to do with accepted aircraft maintenance and modifications processes, during WW2 and even more so in today's world. Sometimes situations in the field may force some pretty wild modifications to be undertaken (some not only illegal, but very dangerous) but in the end no mechanic should be undertaking any kind of modification unless that mod has been analyzed and determined that there is nothing dangerous about it and it doesn't effect "form, fit or function," and most of the time mechanics AND PILOTS don't have the education and/ or background to make that determination.
 
Last edited:
OK, I accept your reasoning, FLYBOYJ, and I'm sure you know more than me. I'm not even a Pilot let alone a WWII Vet (although I have ridden some WWII era aircraft - including a P-38 ). (for some reason the post insist on putting a "smiley face" where I wrote P-38 )

It still seems strange to me. I spent 25 yrs in the Army, including VN. I know if in a combat situation, I wouldn't hesitate to "alter" any piece of equipment with or without approval from anyone. If it would increase my survivalability or that of any of my men (or if it just made my life a little easier).

And I think removing the .30's and ammo was easily doable and after a test flight would show no harm to the aircraft.

Our Pilots and ground staff were not dumbies and the thought must have come up at some time or another.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ivan1GFP
I
M
P-39 Turbo - Here We Go Again
Replies
13
Views
2K
GregP
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
P-39-style fighter by other people?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
GrauGeist
Whenever I come across a comparison featuring the Zero alongside more advanced aircraft...
Replies
1
Views
855
yulzari
Menu
Log in
Register