Wildcat during the Battle of Britain

[BiffF15]

And yet Welch still only tangled with Japanese aircraft once whilst flying the P-39D in New Guinea. Same with Boyd. Yet in the one chance they got, they both shot down three enemy aircraft each.

Mad Dog,

Yes, both of these guys only tangled once and both had good results. It appears follow on they had good results in other planes as well. However, this neither proves nor disproves the validity of the P-39. Not enough data. Did they start both fights defensive, claw to the offensive and shoot down their adversaries? Or did they get the benefit of surprise or from the set up.

I get that you like the plane, as do others on here. However, you have been handed a lot of data not from Wiki. Go through it, and then re-evaluate your hypothesis.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[pbehn]

That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard !

So following your logic.
Hitler invades mainland europe, he then turns to Britain and says surrender or else.
Britain doesnt surrender so its Britains fault the Battle of Britain starts !

Wow

Thinking about it, it may have been Churchill calling Adolf a corporal with an Italian poodle that got the argument started.

 

[rochie]

Thinking about it, it may have been Churchill calling Adolf a corporal with an Italian poodle that got the argument started.

Or chanted" two world wars and one world cup doo dah ! "


Oh wait that was Boris to Angela Merkel

 

[Elmas]

A thing that I don't understand about P-39 is why it has not been used in Korea against Mig-15 and afterwards, why it has not been proposed to the N.A.T.O. as main fighter.
Apparently, there are only two airplanes to which churches and altars have been dedicated, P-39 and FW-187.
More seriously.
A - The numbers related to Moments of First and Second Order for an airplane are exactly important as speed, rate of climb, range etc. etc.
But, as to the vast majority of the people that write on the Forums the idea of what a "Moment of inertia" is, very often, it is not perfectly clear, sometimes this matter tends to be completely ignored as non-existant.

B- In 1944 P-39s were issued to Italian Cobelligerent Air Force, all formed by well seasoned Pilots, survivors of three years of war against overwhelming Allied Air forces.
One of these Pilots said in an interview:
"When we were assigned to P-39, we were very upset, we could not believe Allied AF used an airplane that was so dangerous. I owe my life to the fact that, to the contrary of what we Italian Pilots were used to do, I never attempted to perform aerobatics with P-39.
And to add insult to injury, other Italian Pilots, still on Macchi 205 or in very old Spitfire V, did take the P*** by calling us "i camionisti" (the truck drivers) for the car style door of the airplane..."
In this book you will see the (very poor..) esteem Italian Pilots had of P-39:

 

[Shortround6]

As to why the P-40 was such an important aircraft in the early part of the war.

maker..................1940................................................................................first 6 months 1941

Bell...................24 planes, including 11 YFMs............................................73 planes
Curtiss............1259 planes, Hawk 75s and 81s........................................898 planes
Curtiss S.L......27 planes (CW-21s)...............................................................no fighters
NA....................6 planes......................................................................................no fighters
Republic........104 planes, most EP-1s for Sweden..................................a few dozen P-43s?
Lockheed......1 plane..........................................................................................14 planes
Brewster.........160 planes...................................................................................194 fighters
Grumman.......103 planes..................................................................................194 fighters.

Curtiss was the only factory tooled up and staffed to produce large numbers of aircraft at the time.
We could argue as to which fighter was better or if the USAAC thought that combat would take place at high or low altitudes but for both the British and Americans it was Curtiss fighters or next to nothing (dribs and drabs) until the 2nd half of 1941 and even then CUrtiss far out produced anybody else. changing the Curtiss factory over to another design might have meant the loss of hundreds of fighters not built as Curtiss re-tools and gets back up to speed.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

You've been watching CNN again I see...

Huh? Don't even have TV. Ain't no signal in this hole in the hills, and I won't pay Comcast's prices. When I did have it I hardly ever watched. Too much fatuous drivel. I've got several radio stations across the political spectrum I like to listen to, mostly of the less hysterical variety. It's amazing how different the narratives of the same event can be depending on the biases of the speaker. "Truth" becomes a synthesis. No wonder we're so tribalized; we see the world through different lenses.

 

[BiffF15]

Huh? Don't even have TV. Ain't no signal in this hole in the hills, and I won't pay Comcast's prices. When I did have it I hardly ever watched. Too much fatuous drivel. I've got several radio stations across the political spectrum I like to listen to, mostly of the less hysterical variety. It's amazing how different the narratives of the same event can be depending on the biases of the speaker. "Truth" becomes a synthesis. No wonder we're so tribalized; we see the world through different lenses.

I completely agree. Spent 6 years behind a desk with CNN and Fox both running 24/7 on the wall. Something interesting gets reported, so for comparison I run down to the SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Info Facility, AKA Skiff) to get the military view on things. Hands down one of those two was almost spot on almost every time and the other not even close. I enjoy my days so much better with very small doses of news usually gleaned from the interwebs.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Hands down one of those two was almost spot on almost every time and the other not even close.

Now let me guess; Fox was always spot on and CNN not even close right?[/QUOTE]

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Now let me guess; Fox was always spot on and CNN not even close right?

Faux and CNN are one and the same. It just depends on the misinformation you enjoy getting.

 

[Peter Gunn]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Boyd Wagner and George Welch have scored those victories in the P-39 based on, oh I don't know... Pilot Skill?

I'm pretty sure guys of that caliber could have been assigned to P-39's in New Guinea or P-51's in England and they were going to score double digits. Using them as examples of how great the P-39 supposedly was is rather disingenuous at best.

And to me, Welch flying his P-40B v IJN on 7 December 1941, after racing to Haleiwa in his Buick in mess dress after an all night poker game with his bud Ken Taylor, and then knocking down 3 Vals and a Zero, some using only the .30 cals, is MoH worthy and the stuff of legend.

 

[Juha3]

HUGE difference between the P-39 of 1942 and 1944.
To touch back on Welch for just a moment, he was flying a P-40B when he downed those four A6Ms (and two probable), not a P-40E, not a P-40N, etc.

As for "distances", you do realize the 36th FS was based out of Milne Bay (New Guinea) from the latter half of 1942, right?
That puts them well within range of IJA AND IJA air elements.
Even prior to that, the 36th FS escorted B-26s of the 33rd BG to New Guinea and back from Port Moresby, so I'm not following the range issue.

And then, we have a single VVS ace being used to prop up the uber-P-39 thing. There were thousands of P-39s produced, so it would seem that out of the many pilots who flew it, there would be more than one (or two, if we count the other pilot who the P-38 fans or Curtiss or whoever is trying to discredit) that would have spoken up for it.

Also, Pokryshkin's unit converted to La-7s in 1944 - although there is rumors that he flew a P-63 later. But the fact remains, that he was not flying a P-39 by 1944.

3 (none of them Pokryshkin, who was the 7th highest scorer) of the top 5 Soviet VVS aces got most of their kills (as did Pokryshkin) while flying P-39s and in fact Pokryshkin's unit, 9th Guards Fighter Division used P-39s all the way to Berlin. Pokryshkin got his last kill on 16 July 44, a Ju-87. His unit has begun convert to La-7 in Oct 44, but when one of its top aces crashed in a La-7 during his first training flight in it and was KIFA Pokryshkin thought 'enough is enough' and the formation stayed with P-39s to the VE Day.

 

[Milosh]

Even prior to that, the 36th FS escorted B-26s of the 33rd BG to New Guinea and back from Port Moresby, so I'm not following the range issue.

Port Moresby is in New Guinea.

 

[GrauGeist]

Port Moresby is in New Guinea.

Yep, I meant targets from Port Moresby in New Guinea. Posts get weird when I try and edit a post with this phone before posting.

The point was that the area of operations for the 36th was still a target rich environment during 1942, early '43.

 

[Mad Dog]

That is the stupidest thing i have ever heard !
So following your logic.
Hitler invades mainland europe, he then turns to Britain and says surrender or else.
Britain doesnt surrender so its Britains fault the Battle of Britain starts !
Wow

You are not understanding the basis of the whole premise. Hitler needed a quick War. Hitler's grand war plan required the British to simply accept a truce after Hitler had defeated France, then Hitler would be free to attack the USSR. Hitler simply didn't allow for another option, and even hoped that the British Empire would then join him in attacking the USSR! Senior British politicians like Lord Halifax actually wanted to agree a truce, and it took the intervention of Chamberlain to actually give Churchill the power to overrule the cabinet and tell Hitler to get stuffed.
Now, Britain could have done a France and agreed an armistice. After all, the British Army was shattered, the RAF were doubtful that Fighter Command had enough fighters, and the German propaganda was making out that Germany had a massive advantage in aircraft. Hitler was willing to offer the British what was essentially a carving up of the World into zones for non-competing British and German empires. It was arguably a better idea (as proposed by Lord Halifax) to have accepted terms and let Germany rule Europe.
But Churchill knew that the Germans could not survive a long war because Germany did not have the right industrial balance and access to strategic materials, and that the longer the war dragged on the more the advantage would swing to Britain, especially with the backing of the industrial might of the USA. He was fairly confident (being a naval guy) that the Germans could not cross the Channel without the Luftwaffe first defeating the RAF and then the RN. So Churchill deliberately rebuffed Hitler, knowing that it would start the attack on the UK that Hitler could (most likely) not win. So, yes, Churchill deliberately forced Hitler to attack the UK.

 

[Mad Dog]

The UK built a navy airforce and air defence system just to surrender without a shot being fired. If that was the aim, Halifax would have been made PM.

Lord Halifax did want to be the PM to replace Chamberlain, but turned it down rather than suffer the embarrassment of a political defeat when he realised Churchill had more backing in Parliament. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax was one of the appeasers from Chamberlain's government that had given Hitler everything Hitler demanded, and was one of the reasons Hitler assumed the British were bluffing when they said they would go to war if Poland was invaded.

 

[rochie]

You are not understanding the basis of the whole premise. Hitler needed a quick War. Hitler's grand war plan required the British to simply accept a truce after Hitler had defeated France, then Hitler would be free to attack the USSR. Hitler simply didn't allow for another option, and even hoped that the British Empire would then join him in attacking the USSR! Senior British politicians like Lord Halifax actually wanted to agree a truce, and it took the intervention of Chamberlain to actually give Churchill the power to overrule the cabinet and tell Hitler to get stuffed.
Now, Britain could have done a France and agreed an armistice. After all, the British Army was shattered, the RAF were doubtful that Fighter Command had enough fighters, and the German propaganda was making out that Germany had a massive advantage in aircraft. Hitler was willing to offer the British what was essentially a carving up of the World into zones for non-competing British and German empires. It was arguably a better idea (as proposed by Lord Halifax) to have accepted terms and let Germany rule Europe.
But Churchill knew that the Germans could not survive a long war because Germany did not have the right industrial balance and access to strategic materials, and that the longer the war dragged on the more the advantage would swing to Britain, especially with the backing of the industrial might of the USA. He was fairly confident (being a naval guy) that the Germans could not cross the Channel without the Luftwaffe first defeating the RAF and then the RN. So Churchill deliberately rebuffed Hitler, knowing that it would start the attack on the UK that Hitler could (most likely) not win. So, yes, Churchill deliberately forced Hitler to attack the UK.

so Hitler is the good guy for just wanting to be left alone to conquer mainland Europe inc the USSR without interference and Churchill the villain for forcing Hitler to fight the RAF thus making the war last longer and cause more deaths and destruction ?

 

[Mad Dog]

OK, getting back to the subject of the thread - the Wildcat as an option for the BoB. Here's my opinion.
Yes, the Wildcat was probably the best shipboard fighter available to the Royal Navy in 1940, as Eric Brown states. Yes, for launching off escort carriers and shooting down converted airliners like the FW200 Condor, far away from enemy fighters, the Wildcat was the best available, tried and tested option. But only because Hawkers hadn't yet navalised the Hurricane.
For intercepting German bombers being escorted by ME109s and 110s in the 11 Group areas in August/September 1940? No, not by choice, anyway.
Maybe as a peripheral fighter down in 10 Group, or up north in Scotland, but kept as far away from ME109s as possible. IMHO, in 1940, the P-36 presents a better option than the Wildcat.

 

[Mad Dog]

so Hitler is the good guy for just wanting to be left alone to conquer mainland Europe inc the USSR without interference and Churchill the villain for forcing Hitler to fight the RAF thus making the war last longer and cause more deaths and destruction ?

Did I ever say Hitler was "the good guy"? Yeah, keep beating that strawman.

 

[rochie]

Did I ever say Hitler was "the good guy"? Yeah, keep beating that strawman.

no but you seem to be inferring that after invading most of western Europe, Hitler just wanted peace with Britain and that Churchill really had other options than to rebuff Hitlers "peace" proposal !
because he didn't sign any sort of non aggression pact with the USSR or anything like that before invading did he ?

 

[pbehn]

You are not understanding the basis of the whole premise. Hitler needed a quick War. Hitler's grand war plan required the British to simply accept a truce after Hitler had defeated France, then Hitler would be free to attack the USSR. Hitler simply didn't allow for another option, and even hoped that the British Empire would then join him in attacking the USSR! Senior British politicians like Lord Halifax actually wanted to agree a truce, and it took the intervention of Chamberlain to actually give Churchill the power to overrule the cabinet and tell Hitler to get stuffed.
Now, Britain could have done a France and agreed an armistice. After all, the British Army was shattered, the RAF were doubtful that Fighter Command had enough fighters, and the German propaganda was making out that Germany had a massive advantage in aircraft. Hitler was willing to offer the British what was essentially a carving up of the World into zones for non-competing British and German empires. It was arguably a better idea (as proposed by Lord Halifax) to have accepted terms and let Germany rule Europe.
But Churchill knew that the Germans could not survive a long war because Germany did not have the right industrial balance and access to strategic materials, and that the longer the war dragged on the more the advantage would swing to Britain, especially with the backing of the industrial might of the USA. He was fairly confident (being a naval guy) that the Germans could not cross the Channel without the Luftwaffe first defeating the RAF and then the RN. So Churchill deliberately rebuffed Hitler, knowing that it would start the attack on the UK that Hitler could (most likely) not win. So, yes, Churchill deliberately forced Hitler to attack the UK.

Hitler had no grand plan, show me any planning for an attack and invasion of England before France was about to fall. The German military were as surprised as everyone else by the fall of France.