so Churchill started the BoB ?
you really believe that ?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
so Churchill started the BoB ?Well, Mr. Hitler would have liked to have avoided the whole event seeing as he had a pressing engagement with Mr. Stalin, but a certain Mr. Chruchill rudely insisted on going first.
It appears to that the actual myth is that Welch never said that, because he did.The "1200Lbs of Allison armor" quote is a much-repeated myth, Welch said he never said it. Curtis had a lot money, a lot of Army and political support, and seem to have been responsible for some of the P-39-bashing, though I don't know if they were responsible for the "1200Lbs" quote. Bell's biggest problem was they were a tiny company by comparison, with few friends in either House.
IIRC, the Pearl Harbor kills were over two sorties, whereas he shot down three Japanese fighters in one sortie in the P-39, so the P-39 still comes out better.....Welch - he shot down more Japanese in a P-40 (4) than the did in a P-39 (3 - which included two Vals on 7 December 42....
Yes, but only because the Japanese bases were too far away for the P-39s to be used offensively, which meant they were kept back for air-defence. The Japanese in New Guinea in late-1942 weren't doing daylight raids on the US bases, which meant the P-39 units spent a lot of time doing nothing whilst the P-38 jocks built up scores, because the longer-legged P-38s were used for escorting the Allied bombers hitting the Japanese bases. Welch was aggressive, he wanted to see more combat, so he asked for a switch to P-38s for that and only that reason.....He repeatedly asked to be assigned to a unit that was equipped with P-38s....
Sorry, but that's not the case, that's simply the incorrect conclusion drawn by P-38 fans because they did not understand why he wanted to transfer to a P-38 unit. A pilot that does not have confidence in his aircraft would have been very unlikely to engage and shoot down three Japanese opponents in one sortie, one a Zero, as Welch did in a P-39D-1 (serial 41-38359) on 7th Dec 1942.....In short, Welch did not like the P-39.
Yet the XP-39 prototype was already far faster and climbed better than any P-40, prototype or otherwise, right up to the P40-Q. When the XP-40 prototype first flew on October 14, 1938, it struggled to hit 300mph! Things had improved before the first production P-40 (two .50s only) flew on April 4, 1940, the plane hitting 357mph. By comparison, the XP-39 prototype hit 390mph when it first flew on April 6, 1939. The USAAC was aware of Hawker's first flight of the new Typhoon on 24 February, 1940, and that Supermarine had test flown the Spitfire MkIII on 16 March, 1940, both of which promised 400mph speeds. Is it any surprise the USAAC hedged their bets?Please note that neither the radiator or the intercooler had no good way to adjust airflow, meaning that when climbing there wasn't enough cooling air flowing through them and at high speed there was too much air flow creating too much drag......
The XP-40 didn't make its advertised numbers either, but Curtis had the size and political clout to get orders. And lets not mention the time wasted on ducted spinners!.....Basically the original XP-39 that went to the NACA was a dog's breakfast of an airplane that stood no chance of making it's advertised numbers.....
the fact the USAAC persisted with the P-39 is itself a measure of just how bad the situation was in American fighter production, including the P-40. The P-40 when it was accepted into service was already acknowledge to be obsolete compared to European aircraft; the P-36 had already long passed its design zenith; the P-38 was still looking like a risky and expensive bet; the P-35 was past obsolete, and the civil war going on in Seversky/Republic did not bode well for future developments (indeed, Republic were behind the curve until they got the P-47 out the door); and Vultee's P-48/63 was not promising to be any great step forward. The USAAC was so desperate they even considered the Douglas XP-48, which had a ridiculous prediction of a 525mph top speed from a 525hp engine - lunacy! Indeed, it seems quite clear that the state of the US fighter design and the clout of being the biggest pursuit manufacturer saved the P-40 program, but the mediocre P-40 also kept the P-38 and P-39 from being cancelled........The P-39 program stood a good chance of being canceled outright if they had stayed with the turbo.....
More than likely, given Curtis's development performance! Comparing the development histories, the XP-39 was ordered October 7, 1937, with the first P-39C delivery in January 1941. That's with full armament, cannon and machineguns. By comparison, the P-36-modfied-with-an-Allison XP-40 was approved July 1937 (3 months earlier), but only delivered as the two-gun P-40 on April 4th, 1940. So Curtis took 34 months to get from P-36 to a two-gun P-40, whilst Bell got from concept to the higher-performing and heavier-armed P-39C in 39 months. Seeing as General Arnold could probably see the progress from both teams, I'm not surprised he kept the P-39 program running.....General Arnold may have been looking for a 2nd fighter to the P-40 to build while waiting for the P-38.
Yet the XP-39 prototype was already far faster and climbed better than any P-40, prototype or otherwise, right up to the P40-Q. When the XP-40 prototype first flew on October 14, 1938, it struggled to hit 300mph! Things had improved before the first production P-40 (two .50s only) flew on April 4, 1940, the plane hitting 357mph. By comparison, the XP-39 prototype hit 390mph when it first flew on April 6, 1939. The USAAC was aware of Hawker's first flight of the new Typhoon on 24 February, 1940, and that Supermarine had test flown the Spitfire MkIII on 16 March, 1940, both of which promised 400mph speeds. Is it any surprise the USAAC hedged their bets?
P-38 fans creating conspiracies? I thought it was Curtiss.IIRC, the Pearl Harbor kills were over two sorties, whereas he shot down three Japanese fighters in one sortie in the P-39, so the P-39 still comes out better.
Yes, but only because the Japanese bases were too far away for the P-39s to be used offensively, which meant they were kept back for air-defence. The Japanese in New Guinea in late-1942 weren't doing daylight raids on the US bases, which meant the P-39 units spent a lot of time doing nothing whilst the P-38 jocks built up scores, because the longer-legged P-38s were used for escorting the Allied bombers hitting the Japanese bases. Welch was aggressive, he wanted to see more combat, so he asked for a switch to P-38s for that and only that reason.
Sorry, but that's not the case, that's simply the incorrect conclusion drawn by P-38 fans because they did not understand why he wanted to transfer to a P-38 unit. A pilot that does not have confidence in his aircraft would have been very unlikely to engage and shoot down three Japanese opponents in one sortie, one a Zero, as Welch did in a P-39D-1 (serial 41-38359) on 7th Dec 1942.
Nope, not a worldbeater, but definitely much better than a lot of critics make out, and certainly far better than the P-40. Remember, Pokryshkin was choosing a P-39N to fight FW190As and Bf109Gs in 1944, and he shot down plenty of both. I don't remember any ace of any airforce in 1944 flying the P-40N by choice, not unless they had zero other options. That says a lot about the P-39. You can mutter about Pokryshkin only fighting at low level all you like, an FW190 is still an FW190, and probably at least the A5 variant in 1944......I admire the dedication to try and prove that the P-39 was the world beater.....
Sure, if you say so. You sure you don't mean the YP-39, which was after the turbo was removed?The Bolded part has been shown to be a myth.....
Yes, Churchill started it by calling Hitler's bluff, knowing that doing so would force the Germans to attempt an invasion. Hitler's 1939 plan assumed that all he had to do after the fall of France was threaten the UK with a U-boat blockade and bombing, and Churchill would accept a negotiated peace. Hitler even had this crazy idea that Britain would then join the Nazis in attacking the USSR! Some of this was due to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, who had secretly tried to open peace talks via Sweden on May 20th 1940, before France had even fallen. Halifax knew Hitler wanted a deal with the British Empire because Halifax had discussed it with Hermann Goering in 1937. On June 30th, Jodl at the OKW issued a communique stating that they had won the War and that a British compromise was inevitable. Even as late as July 2nd 1940, Hitler instructed von Ribbentrop to write a speech to again offer a negotiated peace. Churchill told Hitler to get stuffed. Hitler was left with no real option but to try and carry out his threats, to do otherwise risked leaving an enemy in his rear when he turned to attack the Soviets. The Kanalkampf attacks, the first phase of the Battle, started on July 4th 1940. So, yes, Churchill started the BoB.so Churchill started the BoB ?
you really believe that ?
The Tomahawks the RAF had ordered from Curtis were Model H81-A2 and had external self-sealing liners (Tomahawk MkIIA) or internally-lined fuel tanks (MkIIB), and all had seat armour and a bullet-proof windscreen. The unarmoured P-40s received were from the French order and were Curtis H81-A1 models, and were absorbed into the RAF as Tomahawk MkIs. The MkIs were only used for training, the MkIIs were sent to the Desert.....The reason that the Tomahawk was judged unsuitable was that it lacked armour and self sealing fuel tanks, and its performance was lacking.....
There was no need to assume anything. Italy was officially neutral up until June 10th 1940, and Mussolini was keen to export weaponry for foreign currency. The cheeky Brits pretended they were interested in buying Italian aircraft and weaponry, and in December 1939 a British purchasing commission was allowed to test the newest Italian fighter and bomber models. Whilst there is some discussion over whether it was a real offer or an attempt to screw with the Italians, the Brits even enquired about ordering 300 Reggiane Re.2000s. In the event, the RAF knew the Tomahawk MkII was more than viable against the likes of the Macchi C200 and Fiat G50.....I am not sure that any assumptions were made as to what would be faced in North Africa.....
Yeah, but if you're allowed to dip into 1942, then I can have a Spitfire IX, or a Hawker Typhoon. And a Typhoon could easily outrun a ME109E-4 at the heights the German bombers were flying in 1940, and hit the bombers with four working Hispano cannons. Of course, then the Germans could have Bf109Gs with drop-tanks too, or FW190s....Circling back to the beginning. Put the Wildcat of 1942 into the BoB and you have something useful.
And that was a P39 modified and optimized by the Soviets to customize it for the unique requirements of their war. Range was not an issue, and neither was altitude performance: the action was down in the weeds. Wing guns were removed for weight and maneuverability reasons, as Russian pilots tended to shove their guns into the enemy's cockpit before squeezing the trigger. Some of the aft mounted electronics were removed, improving the weight and balance issue. Allison engines were pushed routinely beyond manufacturer's limits, which they seemed to handle just fine and the cold climate helped. So now you have a "tricked up hot rod" airplane customized for its combat environment, and not representative of its species as a whole. This has all been covered in other threads here.Remember, Pokryshkin was choosing a P-39N to fight FW190As and Bf109Gs in 1944, and he shot down plenty of both.
YesDo you mean the later underwing .50 gunpods on the P-39Qs? Or are you referring to the possibility of the center of gravity moving aft if the if the empty brass from the nose weapons was expelled rather than captured inside the nose?
Well, we are in the What'if forum.Yeah, but if you're allowed to dip into 1942, then I can have a Spitfire IX, or a Hawker Typhoon. And a Typhoon could easily outrun a ME109E-4 at the heights the German bombers were flying in 1940, and hit the bombers with four working Hispano cannons. Of course, then the Germans could have Bf109Gs with drop-tanks too, or FW190s....
Not what I've read. Yes, Welch wanted a transfer to a P-38 unit, but not for the reasons given. Welch's complaints centered around the fact that he was not seeing any action in the P-39D because its short range meant he never met any Japanese aircraft. He could have been flying the Spitfire IX and he would have had exactly the same complaint. As for Buna being "target rich", Welch saw combat only once his whole tour there, and that was December 7th 1942. One solitary combat. Yet he knocked down three Japanese aircraft, including a Zero, in a P-39D.It appears to that the actual myth is that Welch never said that, because he did......
Sure, if you say so. You sure you don't mean the YP-39, which was after the turbo was removed?
There was plenty of modifying done by RAF and American pilots. The first rear-view mirrors fitted to Spitfires were bought by their pilots from the local Halfords. In 1940, many Fighter Command squadrons experimented with more boost long before it was officially sanctioned. Bob Tuck moved the turn-and-bank indicator in his fighters to just under the gunsight, so he could ensure he was shooting straight. Pete Brothers is a particular example from the BoB, amongst other tricks he modified his Hurricane MkI before the BoB to carry more ammo and planed down the rudder trim so he could make the Hurricane crab sideways, making it harder for attackers to judge deflection.......So now you have a "tricked up hot rod" airplane customized for its combat environment, and not representative of its species as a whole. This has all been covered in other threads here.
If I had to fly combat, I'd give my eye teeth to fly a plane customized for the tactical situation.