XP-39 and the Claims

[Shortround6]

And I still don't consider escort missions to Holland, Belgium and a sliver of France to be meaningful. Not when your main target is Berlin.

And just how many missions did the 8th AIr Force fly to Berlin in the fall of 1942?

Main target was German infrastructure/manufacturing plants.

First raid on Berlin by the 8th Air Force was March 4th 1944?

tough to escort bombers to Berlin when the bombers aren't going there.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

And just how many missions did the 8th AIr Force fly to Berlin in the fall of 1942?

Main target was German infrastructure/manufacturing plants.

First raid on Berlin by the 8th Air Force was March 4th 1944?

tough to escort bombers to Berlin when the bombers aren't going there.

As I have pointed out in previous posts the real bombing of Germany by the 8th AF didn't start until Big Week in February 1944 ( I posted a chart of distances to target by date). The number of deep penetrations of Germany airspace could be counted on the fingers of one hand prior to Big Week.
Here is a active map shown the timelines by month of RAF and USAAF bombing campaigns:



It seems to match fairly well with the US Bomb tonnages dropped on Germany as shown in the Statistical Digest

 

[P-39 Expert]

Interesting quotes in the book "Angels Twenty...

View attachment 579011

View attachment 579012
​

Are there pictures of these 110 gallon drop tanks in the book or are we relying on 40 year old memory?

No pictures in either book, just a few crappy drawings. And Park is not kind to the P-39, his whole premise is how hard these guys had it in NG. But their daily life, technically how the missions were flown, training, etc are interesting.

 

[DarrenW]

Ok I'll definitely look into that Expert...thanks.

P-39 Expert:
I tried searching for any reference to 110 gallon drop tanks in "Angels Twenty" using the Google search engine and came up with nothing. Would you be kind enough to post the passage(s) yourself? I have no interest in purchasing the book in order to find such obscure information.

 

[drgondog]

"P-39 Expert, post: 1549684, member: 73913"]I just can't stay away.

The P-51/A-36 production dates were straight from AHT. Yours are different.

And yet mine is 100% correct, extracted from the North American Aviation "O" Report which details by model number, each contract number, the NAA assigned serial number range, the AAF assigned serial number range, the blocks within each Model, cancellations and transfers to other projects.
Dean did a nice job - not sure he had the 1000's of NAA docs and correspondence that I have - BUT - if you are interested you will find that Robert Gruenhagen made VERY few mistakes and these numbers are correct. Seek truth in Mustang-The Story of the P-51, start on page 193. The data 100% matches NAA O Report for NA-73 through NA-150 to include ALL versions of the Mustang and P-82.

In addition I have the first flight dates and NAA pilot for each model as well as Bob Chilton's Logbook (copy - not original). Are those types references up to your standards?

Combat dates for the P-38 were written to be fairly general. They don't include one victory in the Aleutians or one in Iceland.

And yet again, you aren't digging enough into say, USAF Study 85 - or perhaps Olynyk's Stars and Bars and derivative victory credits lists - among other available resources. The combat encounters I offered to you are specific and relevant to the combat operations of the P-38. Reflect on your scholarship expertise or the reliability of the sources that you have at hand.

Regarding the P-38 escort missions in England before they were moved to N. Africa, you are saying there were three? 2 October, 9 October and 21 October? Three whole missions?

Three that I picked out so that you have clues to build on.

And I still don't consider escort missions to Holland, Belgium and a sliver of France to be meaningful. Not when your main target is Berlin.

And yet you seem to have overlooked opinions of such folks as LeMay, Spaatz, Arnold, Eaker among others that may possibly have a more knowledgeable and fact based opinion than your 'consideration or opinion'?

 

[Shortround6]

Regarding the use of P-38s escorting to coastal targets in the fall of 1942.
It was common practice of the Americans (and British) to send new units (squadrons/groups) on short range missions to coastal targets for their first few missions to give them a bit of experience and get some of the bugs out. The first few missions by Mustangs in Dec of 1944 were to coastal targets or targets in north western France.

The P-38 was viewed in 1942, rightly or wrongly, as America's best available fighter. However it was also available in the fewest numbers. The P-47 and P-51 (Merlin) may well have been viewed as even better but they were months away from combat (a year is also 12 months long so things obviously can change from month to month) So P-38s were sent to areas of high importance even though in small numbers. The Squadron in Iceland was helping protect the convoy routes and the single victory (shared with a P-40) was a FW 200. Trying to intercept a single plane (and the Germans weren't even flying one a day at times) over the North Atlantic called for a lot of luck, but the effort could not be done away with. Nobody knew how much a diversion the Aleutian campaign was or was not to the Japanese and so had to be defended against. These were not out of the way places to hide problem aircraft, at least not in 1942.
For operation Torch the Americans had four fighters, P-38s, P-39s (with 8.80 gears) and the Allison P-40s (with 8.80 gears) and the Merlin P-40s. Even if they wanted, complete fighter groups with P-47s or Allison powered planes with 9.60 gears were months away. The P-38s were not pulled from Europe because they could not hack it there (nobody really knew if they could or couldn't) but because they were thought to give the Americans their best chances against the Germans in North Africa. As spring and summer rolled around The P-38 groups in NA/Med got newer aircraft as did the P-39 and P-40 groups. But the main effort of the Air Force was supporting the Campaign in North Africa and the the invasion/s of Italy. The 8th Air Force was building strength and experience. At the time of operation Husky (Invasion of Sicily, July 10th 1943) the Northwest African Strategic Airforce had four bomb groups, each with four squadrons, of B-17s, two bomb groups, each with four squadrons of B-25s and 3 bomb groups each with four squadrons of B-26s. There were three P-38 fighter groups each with 3 squadrons and one P-40 group with 3 squadrons.

further units are here.

 

[drgondog]

P-39 Expert:
I tried searching for any reference to 110 gallon drop tanks in "Angels Twenty" using the Google search engine and came up with nothing. Would you be kind enough to post the passage(s) yourself? I have no interest in purchasing the book in order to find such obscure information.

I could be wrong but I don't recall that c/l rack on the P-39 was structurally sound for any load > 500 pounds or a 75 gallon tank.

 

[Shortround6]

There was a ferry tank

AHT also lists weight for a 95 gallon (?) tank.
Quick google search turns up nothing for photos of larger than 75 gallon tanks except for the ferry tank.

Edit, weight allowances for ferrying might be different than for 'normal" flying and often when ferrying other things were taken out to help keep the gross weight somewhat in bounds.
(like no ammo and some times certain guns or other equipment removed) end edit.

 

[drgondog]

As I have pointed out in previous posts the real bombing of Germany by the 8th AF didn't start until Big Week in February 1944 ( I posted a chart of distances to target by date). The number of deep penetrations of Germany airspace could be counted on the fingers of one hand prior to Big Week.

Do attacks on Gdanyia, Danzig, Oslo, Brunswick, Hamburg, Regensburg, Oschersleben, Marienburg, Halberstadt, Heroya (as separate targets, not number of attacks)
fit on the fingers of an as yet unidentified 'one hand'? Asking for a friend.

There was a ferry tank
View attachment 579106

AHT also lists weight for a 95 gallon (?) tank.
Quick google search turns up nothing for photos of larger than 75 gallon tanks except for the ferry tank.

Edit, weight allowances for ferrying might be different than for 'normal" flying and often when ferrying other things were taken out to help keep the gross weight somewhat in bounds.
(like no ammo and some times certain guns or other equipment removed) end edit.

Ferry tanks - particularly like the 'slipper' type shown were capable of being larger because they did not require sway braces nor did they not cause undue bending moments to the surrounding fuselage from aero and maneuvering loads.

 

[BiffF15]

There was a ferry tank
View attachment 579106

AHT also lists weight for a 95 gallon (?) tank.
Quick google search turns up nothing for photos of larger than 75 gallon tanks except for the ferry tank.

Edit, weight allowances for ferrying might be different than for 'normal" flying and often when ferrying other things were taken out to help keep the gross weight somewhat in bounds.
(like no ammo and some times certain guns or other equipment removed) end edit.

SR6,

Nice shot, guessing Buffalo, NY due to billboard sign saying "stay left enter Canada"...

Cheers,
Biff

 

[P-39 Expert]

P-39 Expert:
I tried searching for any reference to 110 gallon drop tanks in "Angels Twenty" using the Google search engine and came up with nothing. Would you be kind enough to post the passage(s) yourself? I have no interest in purchasing the book in order to find such obscure information.

Here you go.

 

[fubar57]

I have 16 books about the P-39 and have yet to find a photo of one with a 110 gallon tank. One mention of a P-39F that could carry one and a line drawing

 

[pbehn]

I have 16 books about the P-39 and have yet to find a photo of one with a 110 gallon tank. One mention of a P-39F that could carry one and a line drawing

Obviously more books needed.

 

[DarrenW]

Here you go.

Thank you very much. Does the book give a time frame that these tanks were first fitted? I'm trying to determine if the P-39 used them operationally before the P-47 were fitted with 108 gallon tanks (September 1943).

From my limited research it seems that the 108 gallon tanks (manufactured in England) were made of paper, while the 110 gallon tanks were metal. They have almost identical capacities but were clearly different in many aspects:

110 gallon metal tanks

108 gallon paper tank

 

[P-39 Expert]

Thank you very much. Does the book give a time frame that these tanks were first fitted? I'm trying to determine if the P-39 used them operationally before the P-47 were fitted with 108 gallon tanks (September 1943).

From my limited research it seems that the 108 gallon tanks (manufactured in England) were made of paper, while the 110 gallon tanks were metal. They have almost identical capacities but were clearly different in many aspects:

View attachment 579149
110 gallon metal tanks


View attachment 579150
108 gallon paper tank

No time frame for the tanks, but the writer arrived at Port Moresby in January '43. They couldn't have been the paper tanks as they were reuseable.

I have 16 books about the P-39 and have yet to find a photo of one with a 110 gallon tank. One mention of a P-39F that could carry one and a line drawing

Can you post the line drawing?

 

[drgondog]

"P-39 Expert, post: 1549946, member: 73913"]No time frame for the tanks, but the writer arrived at Port Moresby in January '43. They couldn't have been the paper tanks as they were reuseable.

True - 108gal paper tanks were only made and used in UK. The initial allocation of US made 110gal steel combat tanks went to UK for 8th/9th AF P-47s'
That said Kenney was very successful and aggressive at subcontracting Australian companies to build a variety of tanks - none of which were 'combat rated' per Materiel Command specs - but nobody cared in SWP, particularly since the usage was largely over water.

As near as I can tell the P-39D/F was the first model with centerline rack stressed for 500 pound bomb. With the plumbing to feed fuel, a 75 gallon steel tank and the 175 gallon slipper tank (for ferry) could be carried. I have never seen a P-39 operational with anything like a 110 gallon combat tank as used in ETO/MTO in late 1943. That said, it means nothing that I have 'not seen one'. The only established fact is that a.) P-39s conducted FB sweeps with external bomb load - so the sway braces were in place on the C/L rack, and b.) it did carry 500 pound bomb, but normally a 250 pound bomb was used.

T

 

[fubar57]

Probably sketchy at best as I think most F models had 12 exhaust stubs. From the Czech book Monographie 1 "Bell P-39 Airacobra" by Jacek Tomalik - AJ Press 2000

​

EDIT: added translation - aircraft serial number 41-7246 with additional tank with volume 110 US gal. (416 dm³) and atypical exhaust pipes "fish tail"

 

[Shortround6]

One does wonder about the ground clearance of such a tank on rough airstrips. A more cylindrical tank would cause less worry.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Probably sketchy at best as I think most F models had 12 exhaust stubs. From the Czech book Monographie 1 "Bell P-39 Airacobra" by Jacek Tomalik - AJ Press 2000

View attachment 579205


​

EDIT: added translation - aircraft serial number 41-7246 with additional tank with volume 110 US gal. (416³) and atypical exhaust pipes "fish tail"

Thanks.

 

[buffnut453]

And just how many missions did the 8th AIr Force fly to Berlin in the fall of 1942?

Main target was German infrastructure/manufacturing plants.

First raid on Berlin by the 8th Air Force was March 4th 1944?

tough to escort bombers to Berlin when the bombers aren't going there.

Entirely agree...although even the German infrastructure/manufacturing plants weren't attacked until 27 January 1943. Prior to that, 8th AF operations were all against targets in occupied Europe rather than Germany itself.