MycroftHolmes
Airman
- 25
- Jun 1, 2015
Are you sure about this? I understood that the Valentine was kept in production specifically because the Russians liked them so much and were constantly asking for more.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
An aside but I think valid, is that the Russians were continually asking the allies for two types of aircraft the P39 and the Spitfire. They never asked for more P40's, they got them but didn't ask for them, in a similar manner they never asked for Valentine tanks, but got them by the thousand.
Now you have changed the theatre AGAIN, this is becoming ridiculous, in air combat speed, rate of climb and firepower were decisive, after that sustained rate of turn and roll rate had some importance. There is one factor, it is so obvious I don't know how you can say any other it was speed, in level flight, in climb or dive, speed ruled and no one cared if an Me 262 was deficient in a turn or roll, no allied aircraft could make it turn or roll without mobbing it. Judging a plane on its kills makes no sense, in any such comparison a Sopwith Camel will prove better than an F-22 or F-35.
The cost of two stage engines in terms of materials may seem negligable from a Western perspective but Soviet aircraft design emphasized the use of as few as possible metals and any strategic materials including aluminum (which is why so much of so many of their fighters were made of birch plywood). Two stage engine means two impellers, possibly a whole second supercharger, plus an intercooler. That also undoubtedly increases maintenance costs. These things mattered to the Soviets - they would have done it anyway if they thought they needed a lot of high altitude fighters, but they clearly did not. There was routinely a cloud ceiling at 5,000 feet or less, and all the fighting that mattered centered around the tanks and Tactical ground targets.
Got itI don't mean the Pacific Theater, I'm talking about in the Med. To be clear.
Got itSee this is pretty typical of a lot of the posts in this thread and some others. Sometimes, if you have made up what you believe before you start reading, it affects your reading comprehension. I know very well what was in the post I linked because I researched it myself and I transcribed it to that post.
Of the 8 pilots I quoted in that thread, only 2 (TWO) only fought in the Pacific - Shilling and DeHaven. Of the other 6, Clive Caldwell, Nicky Barr, General Davis, Charlie Hall and Billy Drake fought in the Med. Caldwell also fought later in the Pacific as well but almost all of his 28 some odd victories were with the P-40 in the Middle East. Drake also fought in various other Theaters around Europe in Spitfires and Hurricanes and scored 13 of his 22 kills with the Kittyhawk.
Slaughtered? For a bunch of second hand MkV's they did very well and were far from slaughtered. They suffered unreliability which limited their performance but not slaughtered and as mentioned earlier the Russians were impressed sufficiently to ask for practically as many Spitfires as they could get.They used them and we do know the history of it. Spit V's were used in the Crimea where they got slaughtered and were pulled out of the line, Spit IXs were used exclusively for PVO (rear area air-defense) units. An important job, one which P-40s were eventually relegated to as well and to which the Spitfire was far better suited, but not front line duty.
This is simply priceless, If you cannot see the advantages the Mustang would bring to the Russian front, it says more than words could tell.What this has to do with a Mustang I have no idea. But I stand by what I said - the Mustang wouldn't have been good for the Russian Front.
As for the Eindhoven raid, first of all no it's not "inadmissable" because of the date - just because you said something about 1943 doesn't mean that the whole discussion is confined to that year or later - both the Typhoon and the P-40F were active in Dec 1942 it's well within the operationally active period for both fighters.............................................
So there were fighters and therefore, enemy planes for Typhoons to go shoot down. Get it? It is of zero relevance how many were lost to flak or bird strikes vs. fighters. There were fighters there and they did damage.
Got it
Lets look at what they actually said:-
Shilling and DeHaven - Both Pacific and therefore irrelevant as we are talking Med (see your first comment)
Correct he did say that, and if you believe that the Tomahawk was equal to the Me109F I suggest you read the other volumes on the war in the Middle East and see what happened to the Tomahawk before the Spitfires arrived to give them some fighter cover. You also may want to try to comment on why the Russians never asked for additional P40's.
Clive Caldwell - It had almost no vices, could take punishment ect. He didn't say it was better or as good as the 109 or 190. He didn't say it could equivalent performance
Nick Barr - It was a friend that could normally get you out of trouble. He also didn't say it was as good or better than the 190 or 109
General Davis - said If the German fighters wanted to stay away, the P40's couldn't get them, but if the Germans did come down then the P40 was superior. In other words the initiative was with the Germans which is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Charlie Hall - Sure we liked them Most of us got home that flew them He also didn't say it was as good or better than the 190 or 109
Billy Drake - Thought it was as good as anything they were likely to meet
So to sum up
a) One of your quotes thought the P40 was as good as the Germans.
b) One thought the P40 was superior but admitted that the Germans had the initiative as to when to fight or not
None of the others expressed any statement as to the performance of the P40 against the German aircraft
I will just repeat your statement earlier
Sometimes, if you have made up what you believe before you start reading, it affects your reading comprehension
I totally agree, it does affect your comprehension
Slaughtered? For a bunch of second hand MkV's they did very well and were far from slaughtered. They suffered unreliability which limited their performance but not slaughtered and as mentioned earlier the Russians were impressed sufficiently to ask for practically as many Spitfires as they could get.
This is simply priceless, If you cannot see the advantages the Mustang would bring to the Russian front, it says more than words could tell.
The Germans also dropped the ball as far as having a large scale bombing program of areas even 3-400 miles behind the lines, for get the whole idea of bombing anything even near the Urals, that would have taken planes equivalent to the B-29.
This simplified things for the Russians, they designed and built prototype high altitude aircraft but didn't put them into production because the threat never became too great.
To be fair to the Germans, longer ranged bomber raids with He 111s, Ju 88s etc. did some serious damage to Russian industrial capacity and logistics (like trains, marshalling yards etc.) in the early years of the war. Production of several aircraft were severely impacted, famously the original Yak 3 for example was basically cancelled due to a factory pulverized by German bombs. German bomber raids were quite deadly and efficient, they just lacked sufficient range once the factories were moved over the Urals. But German bomber raids are part of why they were moved (i.e. not just the threat of German tanks)
It also does emphasize that the need for the Spit IX was real and it's role was significant even if relegated to air defense.
But I think increasingly it was the threat of tanks that obsessed the commanders of both sides (*and filled their nightmares) and that is where they concentrated all their efforts - over the forward battlefield.
Of course the Soviets wanted the capability of high altitude fighters, and I believe they did eventually have a reasonably effective high altitude Yak 9. It just wasn't the main priority. In the long run the real need was probably at least in part due to the potential threat of Anglo-American heavy bombers and American long range fighters.
I think a Yak 9 pilot (or was it a Yak 3?) shot down a couple of P-51s over Berlin right?
S
Schweik,
Earlier you mentioned a Spit IX and questioned was it or a Mustang / P47 better. The answer is it depends. There is a reason that Mustangs were prowling over Berlin, and it's because they could. The P47 wasn't as leggy but could go surprisingly far. The Spit, like the Fw190 and Me109, the Mig21, Mig29, are all point defense fighters meant to protect the home plate and not escort offensive AirPower deep into your enemies homelands.
The Spit is a great plane, far more maneuverable than the P51 P47. It's all about strengths and weaknesses compared to the task at hand. Again, which is better "depends on what you want to do"!
Also you mentioned you don't like being lectured. Look at the number and size of your posts. It looks like you are doing more "lecturing" than any others.
Cheers,
Biff
Pray tell, why is that so? Too fast?
Well I for one would like to see more threads on the p40. I think more than any other aircraft I can think of there is alot of false information out there about it.This is essentially exactly what I was saying about P-40s (see two posts above this one), and other planes like the various Russian fighters, Japanese fighters, Italian fighters and so on. Relevant to the specific issue of P51 and P47 vs Spit IX, I was jut pointing out that fastest and most guns doesn't always mean bestest, which had been previously asserted. Originally I pointed out the A6M and Ki 43 for the early part of WW2, but I was told that was inadmissible (and dishonest of me to mention it) because it's irrelevant to the thread title.
I didn't say I didn't like being lectured - I pointed it out one user, Shortround had done a lecture (I think I specifically said dissertation). I specifically said "Listen, I'm perfectly happy to read a long dissertation about the ballistic properties of different aircraft ordinance, it's exactly the kind of thing I come to this board for. "
And I meant it! It was a very interesting dissertation on cannon and heavy machine gun ballistics. It was also slightly at right angles to the actual discussion and the crowing about what how it pwned my argument about two fighters was misplaced.
I have posted a lot in this thread because every time I post anything from about page 5 there are about 3 guys replying and accusing me of either lying or making huge mistakes, (while themselves making numerous careless mistakes, see above) and because I seem to be the only active poster here with a library of sources available on the P-40 to correct the record on it, as I've done some research on that fighter. I do not however seem to be the only poster in the Thread who recognizes the merits of the P-40.
When I have tried to write short posts in an attempt at brevity, any ("yes but") detail I didn't specifically address has been pounced on by those same 3 guys as if I made some huge mistake (see above) so I have to write each post with every single clause and caveat like a legal contract. Obviously some people are triggered by any challenge to subjects they feel they personally own, so I can't claim I didn't expect this, but I have tried to remain somewhat collegial and give credit where it is due throughout the conversation in spite of repeated accusations of dishonesty etc. This is just kind of how it goes when you challenge the conventional wisdom on anything in a place with a lot of knowledgeable people. Some people who are knowledgeable are also opinionated and can be resistant to new information.
I promise though this is my last thread on the p-40 for a while. I may add some combat records to the P-40 vs. 109 thread since a new source came out (MAW Volume IV) but this is the last new thread on the subject for a while.
I may start some on some other planes though
Then you don't dog fight.
You boom and zoom although at low angles. The Mustang is faster than the 190 (10-20mph easy) and climbs several hundred fps faster at sea level and perhaps 500fps faster at 5000ft?
This is for a P-51B using 60.5in vs a 190 using 1.58 Ata and not 1.42.
A P-51D can climb at 3600fps at any altitude between sea level and 5000ft using 67in of MAP while weighing 9760lbs. that would be with full main tanks and empty rear tank.
Well I for one would like to see more threads on the p40. I think more than any other aircraft I can think of there is alot of false information out there about it.
Alot of things I had believed about it for years I have recently come to realize are not true at all. It is exactly the kind of a plane that needs to be discussed and debated over in my opinion.
By the way I would like to thank you and others here as well for dispelling alot of those myths.
From Barbarossa in 1941 through to the end of the war the events elsewhere dictated what the LW did, because it didn't have the resources to do everything. Dates are not academic, by the end of 1943 the Typhoon was mainly employed in the 2nd Tactical airforce. Neither the Typhoon nor the Spitfire put an end to Jabo raids on UK, the eastern front did. Your preference for rate of turn and dive over others qualities is purely because that's where you see an advantage for the P-40. Did anyone consider removing cannon on the Typhoon to improve roll rate? Was diving ability ever specified in an aeroplane or roll rate? What happened in the example you quoted? Did Japan win? Or were the Japanese eventually swept from the conflict by faster, more powerfully armed aircraft. Unless you are competitive on speed and climb you cannot force a conflict, they don't care how well you turn if you cant catch them, the ability to dive is a quality, but it takes you out of the conflict by handing a height advantage to your opponent.No, I didn't "change theatre AGAIN" you are not on the level here at all - and I agree DEFINITELY ridiculous! You said for "all fighters" rate of climb, combat speed and firepower were decisive, I pointed out one example among many where they were not. You didn't say decisive in one of these two Theaters. Give me a break.
And in that theater, let me ask you does anyone think that a P-51B is an all-around better fighter than a Spit IX? It's a lot faster! How about a P-47? Faster and heavier firepower. But better?
As for the Eindhoven raid, first of all no it's not "inadmissable" because of the date - just because you said something about 1943 doesn't mean that the whole discussion is confined to that year or later - both the Typhoon and the P-40F were active in Dec 1942 it's well within the operationally active period for both fighters. The only reason I posted it is because I happened to remember that story due to having read some articles about the Ventura a short while back.
Second of all, the only significance of that particular raid to this discussion is that there were fighters and they did shoot down some of the raiders. To quote directly from the article:
"German fighters had in fact gathered off the coast along the Bostons' route. Wing Commander Peter Dutton, the CO of 107 Squadron, was shot down 6 kilometers out from Katwijk aan Zee.[63] Two more from 107 were lost from fighter attacks over the water.[64] Another from 226 Squadron was lost off Scheveningen.[64] "
So there were fighters and therefore, enemy planes for Typhoons to go shoot down. Get it? It is of zero relevance how many were lost to flak or bird strikes vs. fighters. There were fighters there and they did damage.
If you are really insisting that Luftwaffe fighters didn't rise to the occasion during other raids I'll find more examples.
Finally, Mustangs weren't on the raid and it wasn't a Rhubarb, that was a separate example relating to another primary source document we had referred to several times in the thread already. capisce ?
I have said it before, Russian fighters really weren't all that good at ground support. That certainly doesn't mean they didn't do it. or that they didn't do a lot of it. It means you need a lot or Russian planes to get the same number of bullets/and weight of bombs to the battlefield as some western planes. If you have to use 2-3 times the number of planes to get the same target effect then you need that much more fuel and maintenance and have bigger logistics tail
Your preference for rate of turn and dive over others qualities is purely because that's where you see an advantage for the P-40.
Did anyone consider removing cannon on the Typhoon to improve roll rate? Was diving ability ever specified in an aeroplane or roll rate? What happened in the example you quoted? Did Japan win? Or were the Japanese eventually swept from the conflict by faster, more powerfully armed aircraft. Unless you are competitive on speed and climb you cannot force a conflict, they don't care how well you turn if you cant catch them, the ability to dive is a quality, but it takes you out of the conflict by handing a height advantage to your opponent.